having it and not having it

Does one want to be popular, rich and powerful or does one prefer to be right?

Does the rich, powerful, and popular deserve to be right or does the right deserve to be rich, powerful and popular?

My feeling is that the intuitive answer that most would prefer to be rich, powerful and popular than be right. Of what use is being right- when it cannot be eaten nor enjoyed or felt.

Hence isn't being right also the path to richness, power and popularity as well. Unless that being rich, power and popular is the anti-thesis of being righteous, ethical and truthful. And if we cannot be right and enjoy life's labour at the same time- is everyone by extension living a lie as well.

I do believe that most of us live the assumptive that life is: cruel, short and brutal. But aspires to a life of which is righteous and ethical. And therefore we justify all these worldly pleasures by means of rewards and fruits of labour- even though then these are external comforts and meanwhile the aspiration towards a righteous life ideally remains an aspiration so as to allow an idealism to soothe us and to inspire us. The right is always too far and the pleasures is always too near.

Guilt is sometimes absent or present depending on the faiths one holds. Guilt is quickly soothed by confession of which lightens the emotional burden but not the lingering strands of self-loathing. Guilt is not present when the faith justifies the enjoyments via ideas of worldly rewards by way of other-worldly interventions. Wrong-ness will only come in when self-help is not rendered in times of crisis.
Hence the spiritual rewards the secular via it's secular acts with spiritual linkages.

And as such the haves almost always does not deserves to be right, unless they are done ethically- of which if come the assumption of the brutal world almost always precludes: sin. Meanwhile the have-nots by the virtue of their incapability to master the brutal world is almost always right because they are really in theory- weak and therefore unable to master the world.

Hence as such, the haves are almost guilty while the have-nots are almost guilt-less unless someone has the gumption to declare the world as one big Disneyland. And only in such instance, would the haves be guilt-less and the have-nots as guilty- since it is most likely the reason for their lack of property is that of sloth or laziness while the rewards for the hard work is therefore then worldly rewards.

I leave it to you to decide whether the world is a jungle or one big fairy tale. And in any case, you probably know it in your heart already.