Prompt: A person's worth nowadays seems to be judged according to social status and material possessions. Old-fashioned values, such as honour, kindness and trust, no longer seem important. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

Nowadays, there is a common belief that social positions, as well as the levels of wealth, can define a person with less consideration on other traditionally moral virtues. From my perspective, I do not advocate this point of view as differences between abstract and material values. Ċ On the one hand, it is undeniable that to some extend, people can gain higher respect and build up their reputation due to social status and their own property, especially in East Asia countries where the society was featured by hierarchy. People work, receive benefits and make friends based on their social classes. It's rare to witness a rich lady get along with poor children. Ċ On the other hand, good ancient values are still fundamental to building up a sustainable society. A person who is honest and kind can receive love from other people. Maybe he cannot live a luxurious life, but his mind is comfortable and full of happiness. Talent without virtue can be a danger to society. For example, in Vietnam, a KOL who is famous for either negative scandals or positive popularity could earn an enormous amount of money through their social media channel and advertisement. Temporarily, that man can buy friends, summon tons of privileges at will, and be considered as an idol in another's eyes. However, without a good moral personality, he may incidentally spread negative and wrong information widely which results in damaging effects and wrong actions of the viewer. As he lost his money, his false friends returned to him as impertinently. Ċ In summary, wealth or social status is not the key factor to define a person who is worth being a friend or admired. Talent and virtue should be combined to define a whole human being.