More Reeves...

… and ‘the least moral form of wealth'.

Tsk.

From the consistency of his pseudo-philosophical blathering (and to take a more charitable view than I did earlier) it is possible that Richard Reeves believes his own nonsense and really thinks that inanimate entities like ‘wealth’ can have moral qualities. Typically irritating philosophical illiteracy from a Willy Hutton protégé.

Inanimate objects can have no moral qualities. Morality concerns acts and not persons or things.

An act may be moral, immoral or amoral.

Moral implies virtue in an act, such as helping another. Immoral implies vice in an act, such as gratuitously harming another. Amoral implies neither virtue nor vice in an act such as cleaning a window.

A person is neither moral nor immoral although his acts may be either or neither. A man may, in the space of an hour, feed his baby, steal his neighbour's bicycle and clean his windows. The baby food, bicycle and windows have no moral quality.

Relativism and post-modernism, relativism’s bastard child, reject ‘morality’ as a concept. Their advocates often use the term but only mendaciously when rhetorically convenient. And there I go being uncharitable to Socialists again.