Really wealthy people can afford cars in excess of 100K. (For just one example). My next example, homeless families in America. 100K is enough money to pay rent for rent for a 2 bedroom apartment for 7 families for a year*. Or, one family for 7 years. I can not morally justify leaving 7 families homeless for a year while some rich person drives around in a car that is nothing more than a luxury.
Equating cutting off your limbs to equalize your situation to that of another is a false analogy. Your need your limbs. No one needs a 100K car. Also, giving up you limbs would not bring back the limbs of that soldier. Giving up the 100K that would of went to a car will pay the rent for one family for 7 years.
To be honest, if I had 100K to spend on a super expensive luxurious car, I’d like to think I’d give the money to charity instead but I can’t promise you that I would. I might become greedy and keep it for myself. But money makes people greedy. That is kind of the whole point of my example…
The next step in the argument notes that a middle class American is hopelessly rich by 3rd world standards. So the ethical thing to do (using utilitarian logic) is to donate at least a third of your income to charity.
I’m not going to ask you whether you do that, because that argument is Tu quoque. I will ask you how or whether you draw a line between Mr. Middle Class American who donates (only) 1% of their income to the international aid group Doctors Without Borders and the bozo in the OP who drives a Rolls Royce.
ETA: Frankly I’m playing Devil’s Advocate. But this is the way the argument is flowing, so…
ETA2: Relevant link to a classic essay which I haven’t read yet by Peter Singer. http://utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
So where do you draw the line. You’ve decided that it’s wrong to own a 100K car since that could put 7 families in $1000/mo apartments.
But if you’re living in a $1000/mo apartment, maybe you should be living in a $500/mo apartment so another family can also have a $500 per month apartment.
Somewhere in between? Maybe should get 800 a month for your apartment, $200 for your car lease, a few hundred for monthly bills and the rest should go to the homeless families.
Maybe everything everyone makes should be pooled and split evenly amongst everyone, that seems the most fair. :dubious:
OK, some very good points. My first response is - affluence - no one needs a 100K car. But you do need a car (for almost all of the USA except maybe NYC or Chicago). I think the situation is clearer when you talk about what you do with excess money. It will be hard to get people to agree on the definition of excess. I do not advocate a political or economic system where people are not allowed to accumulate excess. I just wish we lived in a society where excess was considered extravagant and immoral and that charity and fair economic relations were considered to be most important.
I think theoretically the OP is right but I don’t want to give up my middle class lifestyle even though it would save lives. Should I just figure I’m a bad person, and throw morality out the window? That’s not really want what I want to do either. It’s a tough problem for me.
This website gives no context about what they mean for average but presumably mean and mean is a bullshit statistic for anything involving income or expenses. Median or GTFO.
Well, my point was when you make a concrete example it is easier to evaluate than talking about a topic in abstract, undefined terms. Though I sense you are making concrete terms to try and disagree with me and try to make it sound like it’s too complicated somehow. Well, I don’t know the perfect balance nor do I claim too. I still think it is unfair and immoral for some to have so much while others have literally nothing. I think that if you really wanted to help people you would focus on doing that instead of quibbling over details in the pretext it is too complicated to be able to help.
“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”
Cite: 404 Error Page Not Found at MSUM
Rawls referred to this as the boundless demands of utilitarian logic. Partly in response, he constructed a framework of justice that would put a cap on the demands. The key concept here is called the difference principle. Moves away from strict equality can be justified provided they benefit the worst off player. Rawls claimed that this principle would arise naturally from a social contract agreed to by those who didn’t know what their intial or final status in the game would be. Justice as Fairness - Wikipedia
The problem is the value system of our society. I’d never want to live in a society where people were not allowed to accumulate excess. I just wish we lived in a society where the needs of people were more important than luxury items.
I’m using that as an estimate. I don’t claim it is a 100% accurate figure. I listed it to give some type of context to the situation.
In that case, I think you started your OP out wrong. If what you meant to say was ‘I don’t like that some people are poor and some people are rich’ then you shouldn’t have started out by saying you don’t think people should have hundred thousand dollar cars and then complain that others are nitpicking your concrete examples.
When the only thing your OP states is that you don’t feel it’s right for people to have $100,000 cars while other people are homeless, I think it’s fair for me to A)ask how expensive of a car one is allowed to have before you have a problem with it and B)not read your mind about what you meant to ask.