yes it is
it is almost not possible to become rich through ethical means and hoarding wealth instead of using it to help people who need it is morally indefensible
Morality is subjective, no?
hey, congrats on taking a philosophy 101 class! consider this: the subjective nature of morality does not make moral judgments invalid
A nobel peace prize is worth 1.5 million dollars. Though I'm sure they had to do some shady stuff to get it, am I right fellow socialists!
if you’ll reread my reply you will notice the inclusion of the word ‘almost’. instead of making inane, tedious nitpicks in a feeble attempt to score points for your team, try to actually engage with ideas openly and understand what people are trying to say
It is not the job of the rich to provide for the poor. That is the job of the government. If you want to distribute the wealth look no further to communitst russia where everyone was starving. I'm not nitpicking, I am just providing a counter example.
Actually, after 1947 there ceased to be widespread starvation in Russia up until the Soviet Union collapsed and GLORIOUS CAPITALISM arrived. By 1996, the front runner in the presidential elections was the leader of the Communist Party, and Yeltsin managed to claw his way from last place primarily through a combination of domestic fraud and foreign interference.
Ok? That doesn't excuse the fact that 5 million Russians and 3.9 million Ukranians died from starvation. Yeltstin may have commited fraud and foreign interference but again that's a fault of the government not wealthy people.
What I'm pointing out is that, for most of its history, redistribution did not lead to starvation in the Soviet Union (and that's without even getting into how much of the starvation in the Soviet Union was a result of communism vs. authoritarianism and genocidal crackdowns) and that, in fact, the *end* of redistribution and the arrival of capitalist policies was disastrous for the Russian people.