To think that people have the principles they can afford?

[Hullygully]

Do you have, or know anyone that does, principles that would absolutely not be ditched in the event of greater wealth?

Do you have, or know anyone that does, principles that would absolutely not be ditched in the event of greater wealth?

Or the reverse? my principles and politics do not change. I am considerably less affluent than I was 20 years ago but I still believe wholeheartedly in private education, private medicine, all manner of insurances and pensions. A lot of people on principle wouldn't pay into any of that. But I'm pure capitalist at heart.

Hully
It's not the poor who dress up their necessary lifestyle in high falutin principles and right on sermonising.

It's the rich who really don't give a toss about anybody but themselves and don't bother dressing it up at all. Philip Green (of Top Shop etc.) stays within the letter of tax law, if not the spirit and he really couldn't give a toss who knows about it.

That worries me much more.

"I think private school is worse because it puts your kids at an unfair advantage above others."

I think it is the primary moral duty of every parent to give their DCs as many unfair advantages above others as possible.

chien mange chien

trouble with that is you end up in a world with a lot of bitten scared dogs and one top dog.

Private school does not instil intelligence. No amount of money can buy brains.
It does however provide self sufficiency, self confidence and those that choose use use a private route are those who want to see their moneys worth, therefore they will the ones who insist rules and ensure they are complied with, homework and assignments done plus conformity with in reason. The reason for that is: their child is there by invitation not right and can have their place revoked at any time.

It's a bit like the army, conform but have enough difference to be a leader and challenge.

Having been through both sectors, it would be foolish to say that private schooling holds the majority on that. Most parents want that for their child. However state schools are tied by government curriculum more so than private. In some ways it is a bit unfair that Johnny Comprehensive does after school rugby matches with local schools and Tarquin Indi has a 3 week tour of South Africa, Fiji, NZ and a long weekend in San Francisco. But plenty of comp parents have those sorts of holidays too.

Agree with Bonsoir. Anything that richer parents can afford can give their kids an advantage over poorer ones, I'm not talking about love or security, but dancing classes, sports clubs, swimming lessons, kick-boxing - they are beyond the reach of some people. It is not just private education that gives some children an advantage.

Back to the OP, I am not particularly principled, what I can't stand is people who claim to have the moral high ground over others, who then do the opposite of what they preach because it suits their personal circumstances, while still maintaining their choice is more principled than everyone else's. Hypocrisy leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Some do.

Best one I ever heard was when someone told me 'they hope I'm saving all of ds child benefit in a trust fund'. Ye right I can dream.

It's an interesting way to put it!

I don't know really. As a time-honoured bunfight on MN I wouldn't send my DC to private school even if we could afford it.

But, if we had a LOT more money and the state schools were crap and all of the local DC we are family friends with were going private, I would definately be having a wibble. No doubt about it.

I have one "friend" who used to bang on about how it is so important that children go to their local school (the school in particular would be best described as mediocre). Low and behold, as soon as her DH's career took off they bought a house in a very, very expensive catchment area. The hypocrisy stuck in my throat TBH.

To a degree.

But we are talking private schools and healthcare here. Which in the grand scheme of things is not exactly evil. I don't think either are inherently wrong and would quite like private healthcare when I have a family but won't be able to afford it.

I don't think I would use private school unless my children had SN and local state provision was crap. But I would move, to a better area (though not necc more expensive, i don't think it's quite that simple) if my children were v unhappy at the local state school.

I went, it wasn't buttercups and and sunflowers but I have a job that is dominated by privatley educated people so think private fees would have been a bit of a waste tbh. I may have gotten into Oxbridge, but there is nothing stopping me doing a masters/phd there in later life now I have the confidence and know the game if i feel that is holding me back.

However, I would never take a morally wrong job. I did a biology degree and working for a pharma company was heavily pushed but it just didn't sit well with me. I have an uncle who did the same and is now an RG professor.

I don't think I will ever backstab someone in the work place for a promotion etc

If every recognised that life's a competition rather than pretending it wasn't, they wouldn't get so hurt every time something didn't work out (which happens to everyone all the time). Resilience is born of knowing you are going to have to work very hard to get ahead and the road will be long and bumpy and you'd better take all the opportunities you can.

I dont but a fair proportion of the people I know would drop their principles in a heartbeat if they came into money. I have also seen it time and time again in people that have made money IT sales, sellign companies etc. It often, not always causes more misery that it solves.

fro the title I thought this was going to be on the lines of Eliza Dolittle's dad, saying he couldn't afford iddle class orals

I agree with that, but I' not sure I agree that you ditch principles as you becoe better off

sorry about lack of letter between l and n, btw. A child spilt Acti el on the keyboard earlier rrrrr

what is annoying on these threads is the suggestion that people don't do things purely because of money.

I assume my children will be better off in state education. There are some situations where that may not be the case, but I think they are few and far between.

I assume that for most conditions I am better off being treated by the NHS. Again, there are some situations where that may not be the case but they are few and far between.

actually that's bollocks

we'e just coe into a bit of oney and y long held po faced principle about Not Flying is holding on by its fingernails

nb hearing about my mil's private childbirth situation made me know that at my first contraction I will be running to the nearest nhs maternity ward and clinig to the door frame if anyone suggests private. I'm not even pregnant.

This (the OP) is a really interesting question.

It is surely always easier to uphold principles that coincide with our circumstances, and much harder to uphold those where there are pressures from the other side.

For example, if I believe in reducing my carbon footprint I can choose to holiday locally in a tent in a field. If I can't afford the air fare to fly abroad to somewhere a bit more clement than the British summer there is no real pressure on me to do anything else. However, if I can afford the air far and, given the god-awful weather I can instead choose to not be cold and wet and maybe offset my carbon footprint by donating to a planting trees charity (if i can afford this on top of the flight).

Conversely if I believe in animal welfare and can afford to do so then I can buy organic meat, whereas if I can't afford it then my belief that my family will benefit from a varied omnivorous diet may exert a greater moral pressure than my views on animal welfare.

There is possibly also an age issue here. When you are young you tend to have less money and also to be more idealistic. Often your friends are in the same position and you all make the best of your situation by finding the positives in fairly uncomfortable circumstances. As you all grow up some people will inevitably become more well off than others and may claim the same principles but not necessarily live by them to the same extent, because really most people want a comfortable existence. If you live very firmly by your principles and (maybe as a consequence?) your ability to make lifestyle choices does not keep up with others in your peer group then I imagine it is quite easy to become a little bitter and resentful. I think when we are young we perceive hardship as a transient stage and if it starts to look like it's not going to be that can be very difficult.

Wrt your friend it may not necessarily be that her principles aren't genuinely held - she may just be a little tired of them being a necessity rather than a choice. Tbh i enjoy my wet camping much more knowing that I have chosen it than I did when it was my only option. Also if you have similar principles yourself but don't rigidly adhere to them then it is understandable if she finds it hard if she perceives you to have a better quality of life.

Sorry, that was long and badly written. Didn't mean to be so waffly (and preachy ), it's something I've thought about myself and I find really interesting.

I think it's an interesting question too, but the question as its presented here seems to imply that cheaper options are somehow more morally correct than more expensive options, and I'm not sure that's always the case.

Take travel. Your carbon footprint may be higher if you fly off to foreign destinations three times a year than it would be if you camped in the country you live in, but there's a lot to be said for supporting other less well off countries with your tourism. Tourism is something that whole countries rely on to avoid mass unemployment in many cases, and these countries often don't have a welfare state for their people to rely on. So which is better - having a smaller carbon footprint, or supporting real families that wouldn't have any income if it weren't for tourists?

Take education. It's a fact that there aren't enough state school places for every child in the country. I'm lucky enough to live in the catchment of a great comprehensive school that people move into the area to get a place at. If I could afford private school, is my money better spent supporting the PTA of the state school, or is it better spent by allowing another child whose parents couldn't afford private school the chance to still go to a great school. There's no point pretending that all schools are equal, they are not, and they are not going to be any time soon no matter where my imaginary money goes. So here and now, which option gives me the moral high ground?

I could go on with other examples related to healthcare, buying luxury clothes etc, but you get the point.

You could find a principle that's worth sticking to no matter what your bank balance is.

I think Josephine you'll find that very few Guardian journalists went to school in Holland Park, but feel free to continue with your somewhat strange vendetta against said publication.
Guardian contributers then. Same thing really. Barely any Guardian contributers went to "normal" state schools. They preach about inequality when all of them benefit from it, they preach against people getting jobs due to family connections, when half the staff at the Guardian are related to one another, however much they try to hide it. They preach against the elitism of Oxbridge when the majority of them went there. The whole newspaper is an utter farce and I cannot wait for the day when it folds.

I rather expected this to be about principles that would be ditched in the event of lesser wealth.

e.g. "we only eat organic" or "I would never buy clothes from a company that used sweatshops".

If you're poor you might just buy food, and clothes, without consideration of that kind of thing.

I do agree that it goes both ways, but I've seen more in one direction than the other.

I know people who can very much afford to say that money is not important to them, and that they choose their career/jobs based on what they love and what they think is important. Having parents contribute heavily to buying a house (a serious issue for my generation) might slightly have helped them to come to that conclusion.

Why are people going on about Holland Park as if it's something amazing. It may be a very expensive area nowadays, but when (collective) we were at school it wasn't anything special. I grew up in Holland Park, I still have friends that live in HA accommodation in that area. The schools are the same as they are anywhere else in the country, some good, some not so much.

Yes, you're right of course outraged I just picked the environmental example as that's probably my personal 'highest level' principle, but different people will have different priorities and principles that will lead them to take a different decision.

You are right though that the 'poorer' option is often perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the true moral high ground. I wonder why this is? Is it a rather patronising redressing of the balance where the more priveliged allow the less well off to claim (or have bestowed upon them) moral superiority as a kind of consolation prize? Or is that way too cynical?