Beggars can't be choosers. They can't have mansions or morals.

Today Britain and much of western society is hailed as a free, liberal and opportunity filled land of promise. There has never been such good access to education, training and advice. So naturally there should be a cornucopia of choice and power over your own life. In such a setting then, we would think that people could easily adhere to and uphold admirable moral and ethical lifestyles. A stable and lawful country should be a haven of ethical citizens. But I would argue there is another hugely important factor that allows people to act morally, that is wealth. Think about it for a moment, go back in history, who is it working in the whore houses or pickpocketing? Its those at the bottom of society, the impoverished and hapless.

In the majority of cases, however, the circumstances of the poor made necessary their actions. The prostitutes didn't have childhood dreams of being a prostitute, poverty necessitated it. Nor did the starving child wish to be in the situation where he had to steal in order to go on breathing. It was all very well for the rich to look in disgust at those whose lives were filled with depravity and crime. The wealth of the rich afforded them the privilege of higher morals. Placed in the same situation any member of the aristocracy would be forced to act the same.

Although less prominent, it is still the case today. It is the wealthy who can buy the free range organic chicken and the Fairtrade clothing ranges. The poor are still left with the cruelly produced poultry and sweatshop manufactured T-shirts. Their financial circumstances dictate how ethical their actions can be. Those who are in the position of the privileged can sit back with a clear conscience, knowing they're helping a farmer in Brazil somewhere. Whilst the rest must sit there with the guilt of buying from businesses exploiting children in China. Hardly what you would call equal is it?


I'm not saying we don't all have the desire to be ethical consumers and uphold our moral codes through actions- but we don't all have the choice. There may be far more equality and better living standards than a hundred years ago but there's still a very long way to go before we are all sufficiently free to be clear in conscience.

A key concept to understand is the fact that morality and ethics can never truly exist outside reality. Our ideals and actions can often be two very separate things, even when given a multitude of choices. So when presented with only a few choices, one can only be as ethical as the available choices allow. Thus, if you're in the situation where wealth affords greater choice, it stands to reason that you are presented with greater opportunity to be more ethical.

So does that mean that the poorer you are, the less moral you are? In principle no, in action probably. Your desires may be ethical, however, your consumption can only be as ethical as the variety available.

It would appear morality is as subject to economic forces as any other commodity and those with the money can have the finest. Even in the modern age, equality is as sluggish as ever.