Is it possible for a devoutly religious person to climb the corporate ladder from the bottom and become an owner of a multi-million dollar company without, at some point, compromising a major aspect of their religious belief? Are top teir business executives and the most faithfully religious persons mutually exclusive? Can a person remain charitable in all business affairs and at the same time win the corporate race?
No, it does not seem possible.
Christianity determines success by embracing weakness, buiness determines success by competitive advantage and profit margins. Living a moral life requires silence, self-reflection, and patience. Becoming part of the top 1% in the financial world requires savvy instanteious decisions which have revenue as their soul motivation. Holiness requires self-sacrifice for others, giving without receiving, and completely surrendering personal desires. Successful businessmen require a relentless, competitive, and cut-throat spirit which seeks to satisfy their personal (or business) desire for prestiege and power.
Why does it seem like all of the most financially successfull people have no religious belief?
Could it be as this article suggests that a majority of top executives are psychopaths?
These obvious discrepancies between the Christan message of charity and the pursuit of financial success in secular society leave one guessing. Surely, as in most things, there must be a balance between the two?
Maybe the fundamental flaw can be traced all the way back to Max Weber's study of John Calvin (considered to be the father of capitalism) and Calvin's view of predestination coupled with the Protestant work ethic which sees the pursuit of profit as virtue. Weber's point is that from the perspective of predestination, where one must take an active role in verifying one's own salvation, achieving financial success is a tangible way to demonstrate one's own worthiness. Weber concluded that "once capitalism emerged, the Protestant values were no longer necessary, and their ethic took on a life of its own. We are now locked into the spirit of capitalism because it is so useful for modern economic activity."
It's easy to see from here how Joel Osteen and the Prosperity Gospel could be so popular: more or less validating excess-indeed, capitalism.
The middle ground would seem to be to strive for financial success but to not allow it to become an end in itself. Rather, once the money is made, controlling where the money will go once in your hands. Still, we're back to square-one in terms of what moral corners have to be cut in order to even have money in your hands.
I stand by my original thesis: top business executives and deeply religious persons are mutually exclusive.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What Tim was trying to post:
There are a few things I think need clarifying. I don’t know that I agree with your description of the requirements of a “successful businessman.” Are these qualities not the qualities of any other average member of a group or just society in general? I would guess that any time you take a sample of people, on the average, they are seeking to satisfy their desire for prestige and power (say, a sample of church choir directors, for example). I would posit that these are human qualities you describe, not exclusively businessman qualities. Indeed, all of society seems to have “no religious belief.”
Does financial success not provide the means for at least some of the Christian virtues that you mention such as silence and self-reflection? I am not suggesting that these ends would justify the means that you describe, but I just don’t believe that your description is necessarily accurate.
How is relentlessness a bad quality?
Do business pursuits, with their many successes, failures, ups and downs, not teach us something valuable about what it means to live a Christian life?
JP2 in Laborem exercens says that work is “an obligation, that is to say a duty” of the Christian man. He also says that labour is inseparable from capital. This leads me to believe that becoming a business owner, even of a multi-million dollar company, can be possible without losing one's faithfulness. Section III part 15 outlines the importance of, in my interpretation, the profit motive (which you seem to attack):
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0217/__PG.HTM
Response to Tim:
I'm talking about top tier executives, not middle management. I'm also referring to deeply religious people, not nominal church-goers. I'm referring to extremes.
I agree, success should be the goal of any individual's pursuit. But again, I'm talking about what it takes to make it to that Fortune 100 CEO position. Comparing such a position to a choir director doesn't seem compatible. Also, I would say that like any other work related position, there are those who strive for ethical professionalism (which to me basically means following natural moral codes) and those that are self-seeking egoists who have no regard for others. From my perspective, it is the latter who seem to hold almost every high ranking position of authority in major corporations/institution. I guess you're right, clarifying my point was needed.
Referring to Laborem excercens: my point isn't that one should not be a determined, confident, and motivated individual. And I agree one's work should be receive due reward (I didn't argue that either). I don't think the connection can be made between one deserving compensation for labor and compromising moral ideals while climbing the competitive corporate ladder.
I'm not trying to attack profit. I'm trying to make the claim that in the competitive capitalist economy we've created (as a result of a misunderstanding of Christianity perhaps), there is no way to reach what's considered the pinnacle of success while remaining the deeply religious persons we are called to be.
Where do you get this information that what it takes to become a CEO of a Fortune 100 corporation includes being immoral?
Post a Comment