Philosophical Ramblings #10: Against "Eat the Rich"

July 20, 2025

“Eat the rich” is a slogan often used in left-wing circles as a rallying cry to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, in order to alleviate issues like extreme poverty. The exact interpretation varies,for example some argue that billionaires shouldn’t exist at all.

I disagree with this assessment. Why? Because it shifts responsibility away from the individual and places blame on a group one defines as “the rich.” But in reality, we, and by “we” I mean most people in the Western world, are already rich by global standards. Everyone has the ability to help others, yet most people choose not to. Instead, they deflect responsibility and shift the burden to someone else.

This reminds me of a thought experiment by the philosopher Peter Singer. Imagine there’s a child drowning in the sea right in front of you. You see people walking by without helping. When you ask them why, one says, “Why should I help? Someone else probably will.” Another says, “I’m already late for work; I don’t have time.” Another says, “I’m wearing expensive designer clothes and don’t want to ruin them.” In every case, we’d see these people as monstrous. Especially because if everyone thinks this way, the child simply drowns.

Now compare this to the world we live in. Right now, you could literally save a child in Africa dying from malaria, hunger, or contaminated water, by donating to a charity. Just like the drowning child in the thought experiment. If you think the bystanders in that scenario are morally reprehensible, then what excuse do you have for not helping real children suffering today? The only difference is distance, but why should that be morally relevant?

I’m not even saying that everyone must donate to charity or give away all their money. I’m only pointing out a contradiction: if you believe that we should take money from the rich to help the poor, then you should start with yourself. That 5$ Starbucks latte, the new phone, the drinks at the bar, you could have used that money to help someone in need. This is the exact same argument made about billionaires: “They don’t need yachts or private jets; that money could help the poor.” And that’s true. But how is your latte any more necessary?

So the slogan “Eat the rich” ends up removing personal agency. It makes the problem someone else’s fault, someone wealthier, more powerful, more distant. But the truth is: you had the agency all along.

This point is especially relevant for Christians, for whom charity is an explicit virtue. Salvation is received through the grace of God, but only in a soul shaped by virtue.