What we really think about the ultra-wealthy

Is a billionaire a brilliant innovator or a modern-day dragon, hoarding gold?

Whether people admire or condemn extreme wealth may have less to do with economic theories and more to do with deep moral instincts shaped by culture, religion and psychology.

That’s the takeaway from a new global study co-led by researchers at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Published in the journal PNAS Nexus, the research explores a provocative question: Is it morally wrong to be extremely rich?

It’s a timely question. As of 2025, more than 3,000 billionaires across 78 nations collectively hold about $16 trillion in wealth — and the richest 1% now control nearly half of all the world’s financial assets. Such extreme concentration gives new resonance to a simple moral question: When does wealth become excess — and how does it make us feel?

“People talk about inequality all the time, but that’s different from asking whether having too much money is morally wrong,” said co-lead author Jackson Trager, a psychology PhD candidate at the Morality and Language Lab directed by Morteza Dehghani, professor of psychology and computer science at USC Dornsife.

To find out, Trager and co-author Mohammad Atari, assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at UMass Amherst, surveyed more than 4,300 people across 20 countries. Participants rated whether having “too much money” is morally wrong, without being told what “too much” means. The ambiguity was intentional: The researchers wanted to understand how people interpret financial excess through the lens of their own moral and cultural values.

Across the board, most people did not view excessive wealth as morally wrong, but the strength of moral condemnation varied by country. People in Switzerland and Ireland, both relatively wealthy and economically equal societies, were among the most likely to condemn extreme wealth. In contrast, people in Peru, Argentina and Mexico, less wealthy countries with higher levels of income inequality, were more likely to view wealth accumulation as morally acceptable.

Russia stood out as an exception. Despite being neither particularly wealthy nor economically equal, Russian participants expressed some of the strongest moral opposition to having too much money — a finding the researchers say points to the unique historical, cultural and political contexts that shape how we judge wealth.

The morality of “filthy rich”

Using a framework known as Moral Foundations Theory, the researchers measured six core values that guide people’s judgments: care, equality, loyalty, authority, proportionality, and purity.

Around the globe, people who valued economic equality were more likely to judge extreme wealth as immoral, while those who emphasized proportionality, loyalty and authority tended to be more accepting of it.

But one of the most striking predictors across cultures was purity — a moral instinct rarely associated with money.

In this context, purity refers to a moral sensitivity to indulgence and perceived corruption — an instinct often tied to ideas of self-restraint, naturalness and spiritual cleanliness.

“People who place a high moral value on purity were more likely to say it’s wrong to have too much money,” said Trager, who is also affiliated with USC Dornsife’s Brain and Creativity Institute. “It suggests that for some, excess itself feels morally contaminating — like it degrades the soul.”

That connection deepened in a follow-up study based in the United States, where Americans who valued purity were also more likely to condemn other kinds of excess — not just wealth, but things like too much ambition, indulgence or even happiness.

“It gives a whole new depth to the phrase ‘filthy rich,’” Trager added. “It might not just be a joke — for some people, it captures a real moral reaction.”

Trager notes that the idea that “excess” itself (whether in wealth, wisdom, or pleasure) should be avoided is an ancient one. One of the maxims believed to have been inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi around 500 BC reads, “Nothing in excess,” or in some translations, “Nothing too much.”

A tale of two billionaires

The findings may help explain why public opinion about billionaires is so polarized and why ultra-wealthy figures are seen as either geniuses or villains, depending on who’s looking.

“Why do some billionaires get cast as villains and others as folk heroes?” Trager asked. “This study suggests it may have less to do with dollars and more to do with perceived moral values.”

Cultural background plays a big role. In countries with strong Protestant traditions, for example, wealth was often seen as morally acceptable — even admirable — if believed to be earned through hard work.

“At the heart of these differences are beliefs about what makes someone deserving,” said Atari, who earned his PhD in psychology at USC Dornsife in 2021. “If your culture emphasizes effort, discipline and productivity as moral virtues, then wealth accumulation might seem justified — even noble.”

In a supplementary analysis presented in their paper, Trager and Atari provide support for the idea that a history of Protestant heritage, which is more supportive of wealth accumulation through hard work, can lessen the collective moral backlash against excessive wealth driven by purity norms.

What money means to us

The research helps explain why debates over wealth and inequality are so often charged with emotion and why attempts to discuss billionaires, taxation or redistribution can quickly turn into moral battlegrounds.

“These aren’t just economic debates,” Atari said. “They’re moral ones. That’s why people can look at the same billionaire and see either a role model or a moral failure.”

The findings offer insight into the moral foundations behind those divisions, revealing how deeply personal values — shaped by culture and religion — guide public opinion on issues like taxation, philanthropy and wealth accumulation.

“Understanding these moral instincts helps explain not just individual reactions to wealth, but why societies disagree so fiercely about what’s fair and what’s obscene,” Trager said.

The team plans to continue exploring how people form moral judgments on other complex issues, from artificial intelligence to immigration to the role of religion in public life.

“People often fight over politics and policy,” Trager added. “But beneath all that are values — and understanding those values helps us understand ourselves.”

Editor’s Note: Darrin S. Joy and Jim Key contributed to this article.