CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
A rich person is as unhappy or as happy as a poor person.
Here, a poor person refers to a person who has the three basic necessaties of life: Food, shelter and clothing, just that he has much less of it than a rich person....
Life becomes complex and more stressful as you become richer. Tensions, worries and maintaining that standard of living makes one's life more hectic. For a poor person, life is less complex and hence less stressful.
"Happiness is chemical. It isn't measured by the amount of money you have"
Really, it's all so simple and clear now, hey, why don't you give up everything you own and go live on the street, after all, as long as you keep yourself "chemically balanced" you'll be just fine;-)
"If you are rich, you can still be JUST as unhappy as a poor person considering the circumstances."
No, this isn't actually true, when you are poor, you are have to be concerned with much more basic necessities such as food, shelter, making sure you don't die, etc.
When the earthquake struck Haiti (incidentally, your country is largely responsible for the systematica rape and pilage of that impoverished nation), the population was catapulted into survival mode, the kind of unhappy you speak off simply doesn't compare.
So what you're saying is that earthquakes can't effect rich people... and that the chemical structure of a human being's brain is less of a factor in their mental well being than material objects...
this is why I don't take you seriously most of the time...
"So what you're saying is that earthquakes can't effect rich people."
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth and I shall do likewise.
"The parable of the rich man and Lazarus fits Haiti so well, with so many nuances. The struggles and contrasts between rich and poor are reflected in everything. There are at least three contrasts of rich and poor.
First, the Haitian elites vs. the rest stand out. The upper class oligarchs, generally light-skinned and Francophone, many of whom robbed the country, have caused suffering, but have also provided leadership and intellect, and many now have suffered as well. Second, there is the contrast of those who suffered in the earthquake (mostly but not entirely poor) vs. those who had better houses. And now third, there is also a contrast between rich internationals vs. poor Haitians. There are foreigners like me, who drive past the tent cities into a most bearable hotel, and work here for international agencies. "
"and that the chemical structure of a human being's brain is less of a factor in their mental well being than material objects"
I'm saying that persons "chemical structure" gets pretty messed up when they have nothing except the clothes on their back. This pathetic equivalency argument you're trying to peddle can only be espoused by a person who has no comprehension of real hardship.
"this is why I don't take you seriously most of the time..."
The feeling is more than mutual amigo, I can assure you;-)
But your point doesn't necessarily prove the question wrong. Chemicals may cause you to be happy, but being rich may encourage the production of these chemicals.
"Once again, disregarding how happiness is purely chemical."
I haven't done that anywhere.
"Material goods don't mean shit when measuring happiness."
The physical conditions of persons existence are probably the single biggest factor in determining whether a person can live a happy and contented life.
"We have a thing called science."
Yes, I've heard of it.
"Seretonin, dopamine. Those chemicals actually create happiness"
So, what exactly is your point? That it is physically possible for a rich person to feel the suffering of a poor person, because that seems to me to be so obvious it doesn't need stating.
The point here is that poor people suffer inordinately, and the poorer you are the harder your life will be to the point where you become so poor that your life is reduced to a battle for survival.
The point here is that poor people suffer inordinately, and the poorer you are the harder your life will be to the point where you become so poor that your life is reduced to a battle for survival.
Oh, so you never disagreed with my original statement. How funny...
"Oh, so you never disagreed with my original statement. How funny..."
You answered on the affirmative side of a debate entitled: "A rich person is as unhappy or as happy as a poor person."
That's what I disagreed with, and the argument you presented to support that assertion was pathetic, maybe you thought the debate was entitled: "Is it possible for a a rich person to be as unhappy as a poor person."
If that was the case your argument would have been fairly solid.
Oh, what points in my argument do you believe were terrible?
Or is it just that the title of the debate wasn't specific enough for poor little you?
It says "a rich person is as unhappy or as happy as a poor person". It doesn't say which rich man or which poor man. The description goes on to add certain circumstances that could account, but my answer had more to do with science.
but since it's so pathetic to you, I'd love to hear what exactly was wrong with it :3
If you're going to create a debate about how happy rich people are as compared to poor people you need to take each end of the spectrum into account
"Oh, what points in my argument do you believe were terrible?"
I don't beleive any of your points were terrible, in fact that last one (i.e."I will say, however, that money makes it easier to deal with grief.") I agreed with, but the propostion was: "A rich person is as unhappy or as happy as a poor person.", i.e. rich people suffer just as much as poor people, and therefore the reason for creating the debate was to establish some equivalency of suffering between rich and poor, possibly as means to alleviate some repressed guilt.
The problem is none of your points prove a rich person is as unhappy or as happy as a poor person.
"Or is it just that the title of the debate wasn't specific enough for poor little you?"
No, the description really made sense of the title for me, maybe not for you.
"he description goes on to add certain circumstances that could account, "
Yes, such as: "Life becomes complex and more stressful as you become richer. Tensions, worries and maintaining that standard of living makes one's life more hectic. For a poor person, life is less complex and hence less stressful."
Translation: "Life is so much harder for wealthy people. Tensions, worries, and having to cope with such a high standard of living, it just makes life so hard, like the other day my wallet was so heavy I nearly fell over onto some pathetic human vermin that was beggin on the side of the street. Poor people are so lucky they're poor."
"but since it's so pathetic to you, I'd love to hear what exactly was wrong with it"
As I said, you were defending the above post, how do you think claiming that happiness is just chemical proves that poor people suffer no more (and in fact suffer less) than rich people?
The title isn't "no matter what, rich people and poor people have an equal amount of happiness".
You just don't like that someone could say "well, materialism does not determine happiness, so a rich guy can be as unhappy as a poor person."
You want to believe that the poor are miserable folk and the rich are living a life of happiness that is disproportionate. You're claiming that wealth determines happiness.
Science only proves people are hardwired the same way, and thus can have similar emotions.
"You just don't like that someone could say "well, materialism does not determine happiness, so a rich guy can be as unhappy as a poor person.""
Actually, I don't think materialism does determines happiness, nor do I think rich people have as tough a time as poor people.
"You want to believe that the poor are miserable folk"
Not at all, in fact I would assert the opposite.
"and the rich are living a life of happiness that is disproportionate"
I recognise human suffering isn't confined to one class of people, but I also recognise that suffering (and I'm taking about real suffering, the kind that doesn't needs an definition) is almost exclusively reserved for the poor.
"You're claiming that wealth determines happiness."
No, I'm really not, this debate just pissed me off.
"Does not justify your response to my statements."
I really don't know how to make this any clearer, you supported an argument that tried to claim rich people have it just as hard as poor people, or have it even harder. You did this by claiming happiness is chemical, therefore it is physically possible for a rich person to feel the suffering of a poor person. This doesn't prove rich people are as unhappy, or have it as hard, as poor people, it only proves that if a rich person trades places with a poor person, they'll get to experience first hand how they didn't have things so hard after all.
"No. A rich man can experience just as much unhappiness as a poor person. it all just comes down to the circumstances."
I don't deny that a rich person can experience as much unhappiness as a poor person, I wouldn't even try to claim that some rich people will over the course of their lives experience greater hardship than a person who is poorer than they are(relatively). But these people will be few and far between, i.e. statistical outliers
My opinion is based on personal experience, observation, and common sense. On average, poor people have things a hell of lot touger than those who are richer than they are, and this is true all the way down the spectrum.
My opinion is based on personal experience, observation, and common sense.
That would be great, if you used these things to form your hypothesis and then run an experiment.
Unfortunately, you just assume that rich people are happier most of the time.
Who knows, maybe you'll one day study neurology and do a large enough study to show that rich people produce far more serotonin than poor people on average.
"Unfortunately, you just assume that rich people are happier most of the time."
Well, ya, I don't beleive it to be that ridiculous of an assumption, over 1 billion of the words population don;t have anything close to enough food to eat, while approximately half the worlds population (~ 3 billion) live on less than two dollars a day and can't afford a basic necessities (i.e. no home, no education, no clean drinking water, no access to adequate sanitation, ridiculously high infant and child mortality rates), while 30-60 thousand die everyday from hunger.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to claim that these people aren't as happy (on average) as wealthy person living in a developed country.
As for the other half of the population, I think Occams razor suffices. One thing that's been conspicuous by its absence is your opinion on this matter.
NOBODY here is talking about the 1-3 billion who can't afford basic necessities. The 'poor' here refers to those who HAVE the basic necessities ONLY and not anything more than that.
Maslow's hierarchy talks about the hierarchy of 'needs' which is not in any way related to the intensity of happiness. It does not and can not prove that achieving the top level needs will give one ultimate happiness. His study is based on human needs and motivation. Their relation with happiness is still debatable.
"Maslow's hierarchy talks about the hierarchy of 'needs' which is not in any way related to the intensity of happiness"
Maslow's hierarchy was formulated based the conditions necessary for human fulfillment, how is this in no way related to the intensity of human happiness? the two are practically synonymous.
You seem to be making an absolute distinction between a need and a want, I don't beleive any such distinction exists, needs and wants can be equivalent, they can be completely separate, or they can be anywhere in between.
The main point that needs to be stated, and which I suspect you may have consciously (or unconsciously) avoided in invoking such a rigid defintion of poverty (which btw I ignored), is the fact that the poorer you are the less of your fundamental needs are being met, at this point the defintions of happy/sad don't really apply as the person in question will have been reduced to the status of an animal.
"It does not and can not prove that achieving the top level needs will give one ultimate happiness."
You seem to be making unequivocal statements without much of a basis. When you say "it does not", that requiressome form of evidence to back it up, or at least a very good counter argument, and saying "it cannot" is frankly a stupid statement, as nothing can. Just because the theory is not absolute in it's conclusions doesn't warrant it's dismissal.
Maslow's hierarchy was formulated based the conditions necessary for human fulfillment, how is this in no way related to the intensity of human happiness?
Because,
A- Those are not actually the 'conditions' for human fulfillment. Maslow's 'needs' are not actually 'needs' according to the definition of 'needs': A need is something that is necessary for organisms to live a healthy life. Needs are distinguished from wants because a deficiency would cause a clear negative outcome, such as dysfunction or death
You won't die if you don't have self esteem, confidence, respect, friendship, sexual intimacy or any of the others. In fact, only the two lower most levels of the pyramid are what constitute 'needs'. Since, the others are simply 'wants', hence, they are all subjective and dependent on other factors.
B- The pyramid is not a hierarchy of 'happiness'. Even if you reach the top most level, it is not necessary that you would be happier than you were a step down. As I said above, you cannot measure things like 'creativity' and 'morality' which are subjective and not independent.
C- Even if you consider the hierarchy, each step shows subjectivity, even the lower most ones. Say: Esteem (self esteem, confidence, achievement and blah) varies from person to person, even in their POVs.
is the fact that the poorer you are the less of your fundamental needs are being met, at this point the definitions of happy/sad don't really apply as the person in question will have been reduced to the status of an animal.
"A- Those are not actually the 'conditions' for human fulfillment."
Why not?
"Maslow's 'needs' are not actually 'needs' according to the definition of 'needs':"
Firstly, you seem to have invented "Maslow's needs", nowhere does the theory purport to measure human needs in the literal sense, rather, it tries to establish the general trend of human motivation, first as needs, then as wants.
Obligatory human needs are immediately obvious, and need no formal/theoretical exposition.
Secondly, none of your response refutes the relationship between fulfillment and happiness, to which you asserted there was none (i.e. 0 correlation). I beleive the two are in direct correlation, how strong a correlation is debatable.
"Since, the others are simply 'wants', hence, they are all subjective and dependent on other factors."
You seem to refuting something I never asserted, if you were unsure of the point I was making you should have asked for clarification.
"The pyramid is not a hierarchy of 'happiness'. Even if you reach the top most level, it is not necessary that you would be happier than you were a step down."
I never said anything about happiness, I said it describe the patterns of motivation that lead on from a person desire for fulfillment.
The point originally (in case you misunderstood) was to show (by utilising the theory) how humans cannot even begin to be happy when they are pre-occupied with their basic needs.
"Even if you consider the hierarchy, each step shows subjectivity, even the lower most ones."
That's why it's a theory in psychology rather than science.
The point originally (in case you misunderstood) was to show (by utilising the theory) how humans cannot even begin to be happy when they are pre-occupied with their basic needs
That's why I SPECIFICALLY wrote the definition of a 'poor person' right on top of this debate for the purpose of this debate, which you said you ignored...
I took your statement about not wanting anything in life as reflecting a position in which such a state of carelessness is a requisite to happiness. If I was mistaken, then you are right, it ought to have been a supportive argument.
a rich person may have wants and he/she is still not happy whereas a poor man may have needs and still be happy. for example a rich man may have money and not love where a poor man ''will'' have little or no money and he's happy and living comfortably.
i'm going to tell that rich person unhappy, because they can't and couldn't feel condition and emotions which poor people felt. For example, when affluent persons have earned some substance or achievements moreover never dissutesfieid, but in case of poor people, they are also dissutesfieid, however, they are happy for each cent.
i believe whether your rich or poor we all of us have problems in our lives. people tent to say more money more problems but it all how you choose to live your life.
poor people are usually stressed because they don't have money and rich people are stressed because they use their money to buy substance abuse, they have fake friends, and they cant handle being rich
I was actually going to make a debate on this very topic, a few days back but didn't bother, except I was going to propose the converse, i.e. "nobody suffers like the poor suffer"
Frankly, I think it's quite stupid to suggest that life becomes harder as one becomes richer, that to me sounds like the whining of a rich person who has never experienced any real hardshp in their life. A rich person trying to claim their lifes is as hard (or harder) than a poor person is in my opinion the epitome of ignorance.
Why do you believe this? Why is it ignorant to say that people suffer even though they are rich?
The rich suffer in a different way than the poor this much is true but they still suffer. Look at self-made people, who are you to say that they have not or do not suffer? What do you know of their life? What if their success was only through a great deal of hardship that left them emotionally bare or perhaps physically scarred. What if they lost their dearest friends to get to where they are? What if to reach the top of the mountain they now stand upon they had to win the most Pyrrhic victory of their life?
Look, no one is saying that the rich don't suffer. Sure, rich folks suffer, but they don't suffer anything like the poor do. The rich have problems like how they're going to balance the budget of their corporation, or what kind of huge diamond product they're going to get for their wife. The poor have problems like how they're going to survive the night in a cold, unforgiving alley, or how they're going to provide a simple meal for their children. There's just no comparison.
"Why is it ignorant to say that people suffer even though they are rich?"
Because it demonstrates not only your inabilty to judge the harsh reality of this world, but it shows your willingness to rationalise injustice by any means.
"The rich suffer in a different way than the poor this much is true but they still suffer. "
Please.
"What do you know of their life?"
I know my own life, and that's enough.
"What if their success was only through a great deal of hardship that left them emotionally bare or perhaps physically scarred."
Oh no, emotionally bare and physically scarred you say, well I guess I'll have to rethink my whole conception of existence.
"What if they lost their dearest friends to get to where they are?"
Ya, what if they did, what the hell are you saying?
There was something in the news somewhere recently, about a banker who 'only got £350K a year', and struggled getting through life, as his million pound house + private school fees were really dragging him down. He said that the stress of his life is ridiculous, and no one understands his problems except for those with money.
Are you rich? Have you been in his place and do you understand what comes with it? Do you feel you are judging him based off of your own life and what you believe it would be like if you were in his position?
I actually have a lot of experience with rich people, I live in Qatar, one of the richest countries in the world, I know many children who's parents are millionaires. I've also gone to one of the most expensive private schools in India (not by choice, by necessity and company money), and I've also seen my family come from average income to upper class - not rich, but not troubled by money.
I've consistently seen people with more money have less worries, less troubles, live easier and more luxurious lives. Personally, I think happiness is a mentality, but I still feel that they are slightly more happy.
But with the specific person that I was talking about, his arguments were ridiculous, I wasn't attacking rich people in general. He worried about having to move his kids from private school a to private school, about having to not buy a new car (or buy 'just a BMW'), things like that. I'm in no position to say that my life is hard, but I know enough about the world to know that that's a cunty thing to say.
As I mentioned in the post above, I've lived in India. If you knew your own country (not an attack, I know many Indian's who've never been), you'd know that it's almost impossible to get anywhere without seeing those in poverty.
But, I've seen people living in slums almost every single day for about 3 years, I've done charity work with people who live in slums, I've been close friends with people living in one room for 4 people. So yes, I would say I have a lot of experience with poor people.
umm.....well, actually, that question was a sarcastic response to your statement I actually have a lot of experience with rich people hoping that you would tell us about your experience with poor people as well.
Anyways, so since you have seen both sides of the picture, do you see a kind of similarity in both kinds of people? Do you think that the rich and the poor alike (keep in mind the definition of poor stated in my debate topic) though having different sets of hardships and miseries, are equally unhappy?
Oh by the way, did you notice a very shocking fact that quite a few people living in slums are richer than those living in permanent houses? That quite a few people refuse to move out of slums and live in the houses given to them by the government?
I hope you understand the definition of a 'poor person' in this debate.
a poor person refers to a person who has the three basic necessities of life: Food, shelter and clothing, just that he has much less of it than a rich person.
I am not referring to people who barely get enough to eat. Obviously they are much MUCH unhappier than the rest of the world.
"I hope you understand the definition of a 'poor person' in this debate."
I understood it and I intetionally dismissed it, I think it's disingenuous to preclude from the discussion the people who lack the basic necessities of life.
"I am not referring to people who barely get enough to eat. Obviously they are much MUCH unhappier than the rest of the world."
If you're going to create a debate about how happy rich people are as compared to poor people you need to take each end of the spectrum into account.
There is no more important struggle than the struggle for survival.
If you compare two people, one who is stressing about how to feed his family, and another who is stressing about how to feed his family at the Ritz, the severity of the first person's situation is much greater.
A wealthy person with a steady income doesn't have to worry about how he would feed his family if he lost his job tomorrow. A poor person with a steady income might not be able to buy food in a week if he lost his job tomorrow.
I'm not saying that being poor and happy is impossible, but a happy poor person will be more happy if they can overcome those struggles to survive.
I hope you understand the definition of a 'poor person' in this debate.
a poor person refers to a person who has the three basic necessities of life: Food, shelter and clothing, just that he has much less of it than a rich person
A wealthy person with a steady income doesn't have to worry about how he would feed his family if he lost his job tomorrow. A poor person with a steady income might not be able to buy food in a week if he lost his job tomorrow.
Agreed. That's one plus point for a rich person. But think about this: the kind of responsibilities, stress and risks he has to KEEP that job are much more than those of a poor person's job.
"A poor person refers to a person who has the three basic necessities of life: Food, shelter and clothing, just that he has much less of it than a rich person."
That does not account for what the term "poor" when referring to a person's economical status actually defines. That is typically referred to as lower middle class. You cannot pick and choose what definition you wish to use when stating, "as a poor person." You cannot mix and match.
I think all people are suffering from something in their life, it does not depend on whether you are rich or poor. Money does not bring happiness, they just give you joy and satisfaction in life, because rich people can afford to buy anything he wants except of health. They can buy luxurous cars, brand clothes, can travel around the world and of course all of this bring them the joy of life.
they don't even know what being sad is all about. They honestly think that they understand being unhappy? they can by anything in the world they want. there are few things they cannot buy
i'm sure it depends of personality and carachter of people, nobody can predict what kind of people they are in fact i mean about rich people? so, we can't say surely, that each rich person is as unhappy or as happy as poor person. Rich person he will be happy if money which he earned by himself, that person really happy so much, if he got perfect family, wife who loves him, children are proud you.
A rich man will find happiness if he shares his money with others. If he sees a homeless person and gives him a hundred dollars, he will feel happy inside. If a rich man keeps all his money to himself, then he will not be happy.
Really? Are you rich? I assume that since you are able to use the internet you must be earning comfortably well. Middle class at least? So, do you share your money and feel happy inside?