"Wealthy" is a relative term, rather than an absolute one.

Thanks in advance to Cody for accepting this challenge. It was on a forum thread that this issue first came up as a possible debate topic for Cody and myself. Ragnar_Rahl first made the claim that "wealth is absolute", but when I challenged this contention it was Cody who jumped in to defend the objectivist perspective. http://www.debate.org... This is basically a semantics debate, being as it is concerned with what words mean. However I don't anticipate too much awkward wordplay or trickery, as I think my opponent and I both have a basic understanding of each others point of view. _________ Definitions: Relative: (obviously this refers to the adjective, rather than the noun) 1. comparative, estimated by comparison; not absolute or complete 2. proportional, relative, properly related in size or degree or other measurable characteristics; usually followed by `to' http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Absolute: Viewed apart from modifying influences or without comparison with other objects; actual; real; opposed to relative and comparative; as, absolute motion; absolute time or space. http://en.wiktionary.org... [S]omething that is conceived or that exists independently and not in relation to other things; something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control; something that is not relative http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Wealthy: affluent, flush, loaded, moneyed, wealthy (having an abundant supply of money or possessions of value) "an affluent banker"; "a speculator flush with cash"; "not merely rich but loaded"; "moneyed aristocrats"; "wealthy corporations" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... An individual who is considered wealthy, affluent, or rich is someone who has accumulated substantial wealth relative to others in their society or reference group. http://en.wikipedia.org... Wealth: the state of being rich and affluent; having a plentiful supply of material goods and money the quality of profuse abundance riches, an abundance of material possessions and resources property that has economic utility: a monetary value or an exchange value http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... _____________ Wealth is a relative term with many differing degrees and someone can only be described as wealthy if they have an abundance of wealth based on the comparative wealth of others and the external variables (market forces) that assign value to their wealth. One can be more or less wealthy than someone else and what may constitute wealth in one situation may not constitute it in another. A good example of an absolute term would be death. You are either dead or not, no-one is more dead or less dead, "deader" or "deathy" than anyone else and no external factors can affect death. _________ Some examples of how "wealthy" is a relative term: 1. My opponent and myself could both perhaps be described as wealthy, but only within certain contexts. We could both be said to be wealthy in comparison to a group of starving orphans for example, but in no way could we be called wealthy compared to people like Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch, or even compared to most upper-middle class Americans or Brits. 2. Financial wealth is not determined by the quantity of money you have as much as it is by the cost of living where you are. The equivalent of $100 a week would be adequate to maintain an affluent lifestyle in some poorer parts of the world, but on the streets of inner city London, New York or Tokyo, such an income would represent abject poverty. 3. The value of the money you own is determined by external influences, like interest and exchange rates. If a currency is de-valued, a person's status as wealthy could be set to change. 4. Similarly to point number three, an individual might have attained relative wealth on the stock market in the form of shares in a profitable company. However if that is the individuals only significant property and source of income, then should that company go bankrupt, that person will no longer be wealthy. 5. Wealth refers to economic utility, rather than practical utility. A person who's total possessions have more practical utility to them than they have economic utility, can not be said to have an abundance of wealth. _______ Now it would seem to me that a logical inference from the definitions and common-sense examples like the ones above, should be enough to establish the truth of the resolution. My opponent however, has his own viewpoint, as he explained in the forum thread. According to Cody, and contrary to any definition: "Being wealthy has nothing to do with quantity". Apparently, Cody believes it is possible to be wealthy even if: "You don't possess a great deal of wealth" Cody says that a destitute street tramp living in abject poverty is "Very minimally wealthy. He has the clothes on his back, probably a few bare possessions, maybe some cigarettes. Not lavishly, luxuriously, filthily wealthy in the trashy colloquial sense in which most think of it, but wealthy all the same." http://www.debate.org... It is clear that Cody's assertion that having any amount of wealth (no matter how small or insignificant) = being wealthy is not supported by dictionary definitions. Cody is making up his own definition that fits in with his recently acquired objectivist philosophy. _____ If we look at other similarly formed English words, it is clear that they are all attributes dependant on abundance. We do not describe someone with a terminal disease who can still breathe and talk normally as healthy. We do not describe a freshly scrubbed body that still harbours a few microscopic fibres of dirt as filthy. Similarly we don't describe people who are poor but have some meagre funds as wealthy. _______ The problem with the whole objectivist mantra of A=A is that it is a dead end approach that yields no useful information in most cases. Within this philosophy: 1+1 =/= 2. 1+1 only = 1+1. In the real world: 1+1=2 as well as 1+1 and A=a, whilst also being distinct from a. I look forward to an engaging and contentious debate. Pro.