Ninth Note to “Laila (Part Three)”

And given this “complex divergence” that is taking root between what are essentially the haves and the have nots of the world – it is not even about religion in the very end; religion merely plays the role of a dependent variable in this whole mix or scheme – it becomes a question of how we perceive or view both sides. How do we perceive and view the haves, and how do we perceive and view the have nots? Is it unethical and immoral to be rich and wealthy? And are there really any ethics and morality associated with poverty and struggle? Weber and his “Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” come to mind, which of course serve as a defense of money and wealth. Weber does not defend poor and struggling. But are money and wealth defensible? Or are religion and socialism with their prioritization of poverty and struggle our only ethical and moral avenues and paths in life? One could contend that in the very end, it is not even a matter of choice or judgment or opinion. Rather, it becomes a matter of one’s own “class situation.” We assess things through the lens of class and “class situation” to be specific. For instance, if you’re rich, you do everything you possibly can to not go under and you don’t even think twice about it. And if you’re poor, you’ll do anything you possibly can to get out of poverty and struggle and you won’t think twice about it. And there is no way around any of this. Our basic identity and the basic lens through which we assess and view all these abstract and theoretical ethical and moral dilemmas and issues is through the lens of class or “class situation” based on the prevalent view towards these issues and matters.