Erich Fromm: >To Be< instead of >To Have< as a Model for the Justice of Distribution. An Inquiry on Fromm’s Reference to Meister Eckhart
- The ambivalence that accompanies becoming wealthy is widely acknowledged. Wealth only is valuable if it can be put to good use, or, in other words, when it is used responsibly. Like Meister Eckhart in the later Middle Ages Erich Fromm also (>To Have Or to Be?<) pointed out that the alternative to the lack of distribution of goods is not merely a spiritual understanding of poverty but an ethical understanding of what responsibility should come together with being wealthy/rich. Wealth is, in this understanding, the capacity to distribute. In a religious approach, which Fromm maintains even as an agnostic, he proposes with Meister Eckhart to imitate the >divine< capacity of a distribution without making differences between the possible recipients, who all have the same dignity (cf. Mieth 2012a). For Fromm (like for Eckhart) >to be< is seen as a process of >detachment< as a promotion of a >productive character< which leads life and intellect to a real freedom and to the capacity of Being as an openness to Giving. In the actual discussion about the global dimension of poverty, philosophers search for the foundation of so called >positive duties<. In the case of Fromm, we have an example of a humanistic foundation of such positive duties in the orientation of human character. The normative answer to the questions raised by Fromm's cultural, sociopsychological analysis is offered, in my opinion, by Alan Gewirth's >The Community of Rights< (1996), in which the correlation of liberal, social and economic rights is demonstrated.