Cela ne fait toujours qu’une étude sur sept.
De plus, l’article donne des indications entre la corrélation positive pouvant exister entre l’avidité financière et la classe sociale(1).
Le raisonnement devient donc :
il y a plus d’avidité financière chez les riches,
l’avidité financière favorise l’immoralité,
les riches sont plus souvent immoraux que les autres.
Par conséquent, cette proposition, qui est une des propositions de la discussion (+ riches = - éthiques) reste valide(2) et sans compter les précautions données(3).
(1)"These findings suggest that upper-class individuals are particularly likely to value their own welfare over the welfare of others and, thus, may hold more positive attitudes toward greed."
"Social class (…) positively predicted favorable attitudes toward greed, b = 0.16, SE b = 0.04, t(103) = 3.54, P < 0.01"
"we tested the significance of the indirect effect of social class on probability of telling the truth through attitudes toward greed (…) that upper-class individuals are prone to deception in part because they view greed in a more positive light."
(2)"Relative to lower-class individuals, individuals from upper-class backgrounds behaved more uneth- ically in both naturalistic and laboratory settings"
(3)"These observations suggest that the association between social class and unethicality is neither categorical nor essential, and point to important boundary conditions to our findings that should be examined in future investigations."
J’en profite pour souligner que cet article reste un article (avec ses limites) comme en témoigne ce passage :
"There are notable cases of ethical action among upper-class individuals that greatly benefited the greater good.
Examples include (…) and the significant philanthropy displayed by such individuals as Bill Gates (…)."
Qualifier les actions "caritatives" de Bill Gates de philanthropiques révèle une méconnaissance sur le sujet :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAeiKcbCGxw#t=0m54s