The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy questions the idea of equality by asking “Does it [equality] apply to all individuals, regardless of where (and when) they live? Or rather, do they only hold for members of communities within states and nations or of a certain class status(wealth)?” By answering this, one can form an idea of the root of equality and not be left wondering if it is an aspect of individualism or if it is a situation a “higher power” put them in. In short, it is the individual who decides whether or not there is a gap of inequality.
In the articles “When the Rich-Poor Gap Widens, ‘Gatsby’ Becomes a Guidebook” by Robert H. Frank, “Poor Little Rich Boy” by John Updike, the authors use Scott Fitzgerald’s life, and the “Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald to explain their idea of inequality throughout the social classes, or the lack thereof. These two articles support the idea that happiness is not a commodity and that in order for one to be happy or successful in life, money can be vacant, therefore contradicting the idea of inequality within social classes. “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” is a principle what The United States of America is funded under and there is a reason that the “pursuit of Happiness” is on it. Everyone’s goal in life, subconsciously at least, should be to be happy and accepting of oneself by being successful.
“Poor Little Rich Boy” by John Updike is an article that describes Scott Fitzgerald’s life which from the outside may have looked successful but was close to the opposite consisting of marriage problems, alcoholism, and a possible homosexual affair with a fellow author, Enerest Hemingway. In fact, Hemingway actually said that Fitzgerald “thought they (the rich) were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren’t it wrecked him just as much as any other thing that wrecked him’ (10-12 Updike). Once Fitzgerald gained the “success” he has worked his whole life trying to attain, he realized that he still was not the man he wanted to be and was despaired by it. Fitzgerald wasted his life on short-term material substances rather than relationships and his self-health. To continue, the idea of success is different to everyone especially to people who believe they need wealth or fame to be successful. In “Great Gatsby” Gatsby is someone who believes wealth will make him happy; he even attains wealth but yet still is depressed throughout the book. This perhaps can be a medical problem but more than likely it is “explained in part by the finding that those who focus most consciously and intensely on material success also tend to experience low levels of measured happiness” (64-66 Frank). Gatsby is one who has worked his whole life to attain wealth yet still cannot achieve happiness.
This proves that a drive for something that will not bring long-term happiness is not worth wasting a lifetime doing. The most important thing to do to maintain “success” is to do something that makes one feel successful such as a job they are interested in, close relationships, or activities that bring them joy. For example, Robert Frank believes that “Those who find such a calling [one they love] typically become deeply engaged in their professional lives. And engagement, in turn, leads to expertise, which in some fields, at least, leads to wealth” (70-72). So, inevitably if one does find something they really enjoy doing, it could possibly lead to wealth depending on the expertise they obtain for the subject. This will also allow one to be more interesting and invest in friendship and “potential mates” alike. To proceed, after being around the rich more, Ernest Hemingway describes that “The only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money’ (25-26). This proves that equality borders are only made by those who think they need wealth or fame to succeed. Everyone is living in the same world; some people just have a head-start in wealth or an easier way of getting/maintaining said wealth.
Equality depends nearly entirely on the individual, at least in the United States that is, and anyone is available to be successful in their own individualistic way if they focus on the meaningful things of life. Of course, some will say that equality is not present in society and it is unfair for people to have more money than someone else or that “money is the root of all evil” so the people who have it are heartless. For example, Daphne Merkin states in “Money Always Talks” that “Money — the majestic uses to which this money had been put — made us feel like nouveaux pauvres, dispossessed refugees from another, grime-coated country” (36-37). She is saying that all though she is decently wealthy, she still feels like she is living in a third-world country due to how rich some people are compared to her. This is unbelievable that someone who is more fortunate than others and still has wealth of her own is describing herself as from a “grime-coated country”. Merkin also speaks about how she wishes she was wealthier. She believes that the rich “stir up envy, and they invite respect. Most of all, they make us think we would do better if we had their dough” (40-41). Merkin is articulating that she believes that she would be better in life if only she just had more money. People like her are the reason equality is even a factor in society. If no one envied anyone else, then everyone would feel equal. There is not a boundary between rich and poor but there is a boundary in people’s minds that do not allow themselves to have high enough goals because they feel they are not able enough to or are not suited for it. If there is any inequality in society it would be due to a boundary like that, but it should not be because of wealth.
Equality runs rampant through society, as it all depends on the individual to decide their fate on their own. Having wealth or not having wealth does not depend on one’s happiness nor should it affect the way they decide their careers and/or relationships. The first two articles help explain why equality is present, while the third one tries to describe rich people as an elite group of people who neglect the poor, but they are no different from everyone else. With everyone unhappy in the world envying the “elite” because they are wealthier than them, they are losing time to connect with themselves and others to make a more coherent and equal society. Conclusively, one’s individual ideas can result in happiness with or without wealth; because, ultimately, wealth does not make a man’s happiness but success with themselves will bring a whole different kind of value therefore generating equality through acts of good will.
