I am just uncomfortable with what some of the articles that some of my
professors have asked us to read. And here are some issues that I'd
like to have clarification on.
Is being financially wealthy doing injustice to other people,
especially those suffering from poverty? I am having an impression
from the articles that wealth and resources are like a cake, wherein
if I have more, other people will have less, is this true? Is being
rich taking more than my "fair share," thus causing other people's
poverty? Or is it more like an ocean, wherein there is an abundance of
wealth and resources, that me being rich is not a factor of other
people's poverty?
I personally am in favor of being rich and find no wrong in it, but i
would just want some backing up that, it in fact doesn't cause other's
poverty.

There is something to be said for the argument that wealthier people
tend to invest more - and in the long term investment benefits
everyone.

By 'investment' I mean spending money on things that generate 'real'
wealth, not just hypeing up the stock market - or land prices.

'Wealth' is certainly not like an ocean - unless one is referring to
an overfished and heavily mined/drilled area. The cake analogy is more
appropriate, but a cake that can grow over time.

There is also an argument that a lot of financially wealthy people
spend their money frivolously - and 'invest' in things that make quick
returns.

I strongly suggest that you do not argue with your professors, as it
is quite possible that they are financially stretched - and therefore
personally biased.

However, you could do a small study of privately owned companies, BMW
for a start, to see how a high concentration of wealth appears to
affect investment decisions.

A really vicious and controversial argument is to postulate that all
USA 'wealth' should be grabbed and dropped into Africa as 'aid'.

However, your best bet is to relax, keep a low profile and not argue.
You have probably heard of 'positive discrimination'
- I doubt you would enjoy 'negative discrimination'

FYI I am not wealthy, but have seldom been seriously hard up
    - when I was it was sheer hell

It is a fact that the world is not so rich that no matter how much one
person has, there will still be plenty for others.  Material resources
are finite.  There is only so much to go around at any point in time,
though the quantities can change over time.  The cake analogy is right
and the ocean analogy is wrong.  Actually, even the ocean is finite.

The question of how to distribute wealth fairly is difficult, complex,
controversial, and important, so it is a good one to study.  What is
fair is not a question of fact--people hold different opinions and
disagree.  As a student, you should seek to understand the varieties
of opinions out there about what's fair, and you should at least start
with an open mind about the possibility that wealth can be distributed
unfairly and some have more than they deserve.  You can't discredit
those opinions on the basis that resources are infinite, because
they're not.

If you labored hard for your wealth, then be grateful and don't worry
too much about what others say.  I think that the greater learning
experience requires that you read the different perspectives. 
Understanding all points of view will actually help you to form your
own view.  Be sure to look at the global picture.  Outside the US, if
you are an American or a Brit, you are wealthy compared to billions of
people.  Keep it in perspective and do your best.  A spirited debate
with your professor demonstrates to him that he has stimulated your
curiosity which means he is teaching successfully.  Don't be afraid to
expand the experience with debate.

You said financial wealth, so I will address the issue of strict
currency (dollar notes with implied extrinsic value, not gold, grain,
or other things with intrinsic value).  The idea that being rich means
you have deprived a poor person of wealth is wrong in three ways.

1. Money and economies don't work that way

   This is the biggest one, which will eventually lead us to the other
two reasons.  Money is a device that allows indirect transfer of value
instead of bartering only with items that have direct value.  A good
economy, for all people involved, is achieved through the circulation
of money.  You probably want to research the "multiplier effect,"
which exlpains this in great detail.  If we were to take our current
economy, freeze prices, divide all currently used cash equally among
all people, and only allow each dollar to be spent once, we would
probably all starve to death within a matter of days or weeks.
   Circulation of currency brings us well above that level.  Count how
much money you typically own at a single point in time.  It's not a
whole lot compared to your annual income.  Then consider that most
people are probably just like you.  It should be obvious that the
total amount of money held is the absolute worst way to measure
wealth.  If you are concerned about wealth, both yours and others, the
best thing to do is to keep circulating it.  The more you spend, the
more stuff you get and the more money other people get.  Spending
money, as a part of circulation, is what makes an economy exist.  If
you suddenly felt guilty and refused to accept money (as if people
buying your product didn't know if they wanted it!), that would be
just as bad for everyone in the country as if you stopped spending it
because it doesn't really matter where the buck stops.  If it stops at
all, everyone loses because CIRCULATION of money (through buying and
selling) is what makes money worth anything and is what makes anyone,
at any income level, wealthy.  People don't want money.  They want
food, clothing, housing, medicine, and all of the other things money
can buy.
   The truth is, unless you are stealing from people or selling faulty
products, people that earn and spend a lot of money are HELPING the
economy, not robbing it.

2. Rich people's money is not stagnant

   If you say that a rich person "has" 50 billion dollars, what
exactly do you mean by that?  Bill Gates doesn't have his money under
a mattress, that's for sure.  I would guess that he has a smalll
portion of his money in chas at any time, more so than the rest of us,
but most likely nearly all of his money is in a bank or other
investment.  And when you invest money, that means somneone else is
getting it.
   If you buy stocks, the company now has more money to spend.  More
money means the company can make more products and hire more workers
(this is how most people get jobs, except self-employed).
   If you leave it in a bank you are doing other people a huge favor
because money in a bank is loaned to people to buy houses, cars, etc. 
The more money there is in banks, the lower interests rates will be.
   If you buy stuff, you are supporting all of the employees at the
store you bought from.  Some of those people probably buy the products
you sold to get rich, so circulation pops up again.

3. The idea of rich people taking money away from the poor implies
that communism is the only answer, which doesn't work.

   If every extra dollar in your pocket is like stealing from a poor
person, we would have to conclude that communism (with fixed and equal
income) is the only answer.  But communism tends to make everyone poor
rather than make everyone rich or even average.  I could talk at
length about why the whole theory of communism fails to grasp all of
the basic reasons why money has any value at all, but hopefully the
first two points already gave a good overview on why capping
circulation of money does nothing but hurt everyone and why forceful
manipulation of money does not mean everyone will get the products
they need.
   

In some cases, if wealth refers to actual resources like food,
obviously one person having more means that another person can't have
as much.  But in most cases this is not the problem.  In any economy
where people have enough free time to sit around and create a
philosophy on how rich is too rich, there probably isn't a shortage of
food.  In the US, we do have poor and even homeless people, but we
don't have a shortage of anything.  The problem is usually a lack of
education enabling people to take part in the economy (by offering
their services as an employee), not rich people withholding money.

When reading those articles, look for clues about what sort of wealth
the author is talking about.  If they are talking about the food
supply in some African village where there is exactly enough food for
everyone to eat three times each day, they are probably right.  If
they are talking about cash in America, they are a total dumbass.

hey thanks for all the comments. i especially found xcarlx's issues on
the circulation of money and the failure of communism to make
everyone, on average, financially well-off quite enlightening:)

Its, of course, a difficult question to answer fully with no "right"
answer. But try reading Thomas Sowell's Affirmative Action Around the
world: An Empirical Study.

Your professors being the communists (oops, should have said
socialists) they are, prefer equality and assume its a possibility.
That wealth is a zero sum game. A certain amount exists, and we just
got to distribute it fairly. But the world doesnt work that way, in
the real world, if you remove the benefits from a group that created
it (in this case wealth)and give it to others who didnt, you'll soon
find there is less wealth overall. Which is exactly what happened in
Malaysia. The Malaysians wanted special rights for their ethnicity and
wanted the chinese who seemed to run the country out. Same thing
happened in Tanzania, africans were jealous of the Indians...they
threw them out, and Tanzania quickly became a Bush Country. Im all for
sharing at a basic level so everyone has enough to eat, and perhaps
basic education, above and beyond that its all communism under
different names...and alive and well in the west it seems. Read the
book, its real world stuff, and quite enjoyable.