# How is any luxury spending ethical? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2005, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334 "2005-05-04T05:52:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/181 "2005-05-08T03:49:33Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And I already said so much in a previous post. I wrote that I thought I was acting in an unethical way. […] > > IOW, no. I don’t feel comfortable. Yes, in that prior post you said, in general terms to the other side of the argument, that this makes both them AND you, a “bad” person. Y’see, that’s where we part company. That every one of our actions is not that which would accrue the conceivable maximum virtue does not make us “bad”. It makes us _imperfect_. There is no oprobium in being imperfect. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/182 "2005-05-08T04:35:06Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Seriously, I see what you’re saying and I agree with you (I had a “blast him for foiling me” moment above, until I thought about it more. I also had a joke about cat food and congealing, but I couldn’t quite phrase it right.). If I have 200 bucks and I give all 200 away to an animal shelter I have not only helped cats, but I have helped cat food manufacturers. I think we’re actually making the same argument: putting money into the system, whether by buying luxuries or by giving to charity, generates wealth. > > But, if I give 100 bucks to the animal shelter and spend 100 bucks buying doodads, I’ve still helped cats and cat food manufacturers (though half as much), but, in addition I’ve also helped doodad manufactureres and doodad engineers and doodad transporteres, in the same way as I’ve helped cat food manufacturers. Plus, I get to play with my new doodad, which makes me feel pretty good, work harder and maybe inspire others to be in a position to buy doodads. > > I’m not saying that I buy the doodad for entirely unselfish reasons, but the result of doodad buying is beneficial to the generation of wealth across the board. Yes of course spending that money is better for other people than hoarding it under your matress until you die. But the line of reasoning that its ok to spend on luxuries instead of donating to charity becuase that employs other people is not a valid one. If we agree that spending on luxuries instead of helping those in need is ethically wrong that does not necessarily mean you can’t spend on luxuries. Certainly we can afford to feed, clothe, shelter and treat everyone on the planet and still have money for luxuries. That luxury might be a 27" TV instead of a 42" HD plasma TV but a luxury nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/183 "2005-05-08T04:44:28Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Yes of course spending that money is better for other people than hoarding it under your matress until you die. But the line of reasoning that its ok to spend on luxuries instead of donating to charity becuase that employs other people is not a valid one. If we agree that spending on luxuries instead of helping those in need is ethically wrong that does not necessarily mean you can’t spend on luxuries. Certainly we can afford to feed, clothe, shelter and treat everyone on the planet and still have money for luxuries. That luxury might be a 27" TV instead of a 42" HD plasma TV but a luxury nonetheless. But why do you get to decide that a 27" TV is not a luxury? Certainly a 23" TV is big enough. Do you really need a TV at all? I know this is an obvious argument, and I personally hate the slippery slope, but it certainly seems arbitrary to draw the line at a certain size TV. I don’t own an expensive car or a plasma TV, though I could afford them. But, that’s my decision, and I don’t fault others for buying a Mercedes even if I think it is a waste of money. It seems like everyone gets to decide what a luxury is for his or herself, and I’m not going to be made to feel bad about my decisions, especially in light of the fact that even those arguing against luxuries in this thread are themselves just as (or more) guilty of it than me. I just don’t feel bad about it. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/184 "2005-05-08T04:49:08Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > If me buying a satellite radio makes me 1 iota happier on my commute to work, and I’m more productive when I’m happy, the world comes out ahead just a little bit What does the world care if you are happy? Because you are more productive? What are you producing? More money so you can acquire more material crap for yourself? (not picking on you specifically, just your argument) The world cares not 1 iota if you are more productive if that productivity simply buys more luxuries for you and other people in your revenue stream who have amassed capital. Now when we have the world goverment that we certainly will, out of necessity, have at some point in the future (less than 500 years I would guess), then your productivity will be cared about by “the world”. Not before. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/185 "2005-05-08T04:59:36Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > But why do you get to decide that a 27" TV is not a luxury? Certainly a 23" TV is big enough. Do you really need a TV at all? > > I know this is an obvious argument, and I personally hate the slippery slope, but it certainly seems arbitrary to draw the line at a certain size TV. > > I don’t own an expensive car or a plasma TV, though I could afford them. But, that’s my decision, and I don’t fault others for buying a Mercedes even if I think it is a waste of money. It seems like everyone gets to decide what a luxury is for his or herself, and I’m not going to be made to feel bad about my decisions, especially in light of the fact that even those arguing against luxuries in this thread are themselves just as (or more) guilty of it than me. I just don’t feel bad about it. Both of the TVs are luxuries. My argument was that we can easily produce enough food, clothes, medicine and shelter to meet the needs of the world. Once we meet those needs then I don’t think you have an obligation to equal out the luxuries. ---
**Author:** ![CBCD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@CBCD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBCD)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/186 "2005-05-08T12:48:01Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#): > > Question: Does a person have a positive moral obligation to help save someone in imminent danger of dying if it is in his or her power, the dying person is not responsible for their situation, and the only moral cost is the potential happiness of spending that money on a luxury item? The illustration of Bob’s Bugatti needs some clarification as to how it relates to your question. > [@](#): > > As he knows, Bob has two options: if he does nothing about the situation, the child will be killed, but he’ll enjoy a comfortable retirement [given the rising value of the car]. If he changes the switch’s setting, then, while nobody’s killed… > Bob chooses the first option and, while the child is killed, he has a comfortable retirement. Was Bob ethical? It’s not clear how this illustration relates to your question. Are you asking if Bob has a moral obligation to save the child, or are you asking if Bob’s choice was ethical? > [@](#): > > the trolley will totally destroy Bob’s uninsurable Bugatti, wiping out his entire retirement fund. I thought you were asking about a choice when ‘the only moral cost is the potential happiness of spending that money on a luxury item.’ In the situation you give above, Bob’s choice has an impact on the quality of his retirement, whch you posit as ‘comfortable,’ not luxurious. Bob’s choice is not about spending money on a luxury item - it is about destruction of an object which would secure him a desired future state. Would you clarify this, please? > [@](#): > > someone in imminent danger of dying Do you make a distinction between someone in danger of dying, and someone about to be killed? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/187 "2005-05-08T13:16:27Z")
> [@I Love Me](#): > > What does the world care if you are happy? Because you are more productive? What are you producing? More money so you can acquire more material crap for yourself? (not picking on you specifically, just your argument) The world cares not 1 iota if you are more productive if that productivity simply buys more luxuries for you and other people in your revenue stream who have amassed capital. Does it make a difference that my job is to research cancer, and I’m producing cancer drugs? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/188 "2005-05-08T14:30:33Z")
> [@I Love Me](#): > > I just think that if humans had stayed communal (not Communist), and had never learned the “I got mine” philosophy that is rotting our culture, we’d be a **lot** better off. Heh, wanna go back to the neolithic, do we? Okay, I hope you like the idea of living in small bands, roaming across the wilderness, watching half your children die before the age of five, succumbing to crippling arthritis at the age of forty, going months at a time with inadequate food etc. Sounds like fun. If that’s not what you had in mind, feel free to point out any pre-“I got mine” era in human history that you feel was better for our “culture”. For example, you might want to consider the period immediately prior to modern capitalism; 1776 might be a good watershed moment, with the American revolution and Adam Smith’s _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_. Prior to that, large sections of land were typically owned by members of the aristocracy. I’m sure this was a _beautiful_ time to live, _if_ you were a member of that aristocracy. If you happened to be a slave, serf or tenant farmer, life was just varying degrees of suck. It’s taken quite some time, but I think the westernized nations have (mostly) shaken off the philosophy that some people are born to rule and others to serve, and now everyone can have a chance to say “I got mine”. In fact, nations where starvation has historically been the worst are _still_ ruled by elites and often brutal ruthless self-appointed military elites at that. On reflection, _don’t_ give your money to charities; divide it among mercenary groups who specialize in political assassination and teachers. Send the mercs in first to wipe out the corrupt governments, then the teachers to build and run schools (with the mercs to guard them) and teach the natives the applications of modern technology as a means to make their lives better. I’ll be happy to start the “Bullets and Books Foundation” to that end, though I’ll have to cultivate some contacts in the mercenary and academic world, first. I’ll get back to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/189 "2005-05-08T22:01:48Z")
As an incidental note, this thread reminds me an an [earlier, charming effort](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=111345) of an OP to define something he didn’t like as immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/190 "2005-05-08T23:32:12Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > As an incidental note, this thread reminds me an an [earlier, charming effort](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=111345) of an OP to define something he didn’t like as immoral. At least in that case the OP did not, himself, eat meat. In this case, we have people arguing against the ethics behind luxury purchases while excusing their own by saying, “well, at least I don’t feel comfortable about it.” Oh yeah, **treis** , I was thinking more about your argument above today, and realized another counter. If people stopped buying luxuries, the cat food industry would likely have to fold as pet ownership is most assuredly a luxury. You can pump as much money as you want into animal shelters, but if people don’t own pets, Iams is going out of business. Actually, animal shelters themselves should probably be considered a luxury. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/191 "2005-05-09T01:14:00Z")
All those people that worked to produce cat food would instead work to produce food, medicine, clothing and shelter. There is basically a fixed but increasing capacity to produce goods and services. A part of that goes to create food, clothing, shelter and medical care for the workers. The surplus of that production goes to whatever goods and services the society values. Whether those goods are food for hungry people or yachts for the rich, people will be employed in producing them. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/192 "2005-05-09T01:56:26Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Paying people to move dirt for digging wells in Africa also provides a living for these people. So whether you spend you money on shiny stones or on charities, it doesn’t change a thing from this point of view. For that matter, spending your money on moving dirt just for the sake of moving dirt doesn’t change a thing, either. Hence, this argument is moot. It’s not moot because I don’t see jack shit from paying some guy to move dirt. I give all my money to some dirt farmers in Africa, what doI get out of it? Nothing. > [@I Love Me](#): > > It is manmade and is one of the single biggest factors of humankind’s downfall. And BTW, no, I don’t think that everyone should be stripped of all there property this instant or ever, for that matter. I just think that if humans had stayed communal (not Communist), and had never learned the “I got mine” philosophy that is rotting our culture, we’d be a lot better off. Having ownership and control over the fruits of one’s labor is the most fundamental right people. But hey…if you want to live in the woods like the Unibomber with a bunch of hippies, that’s your right. > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I think we’re actually making the same argument: putting money into the system, whether by buying luxuries or by giving to charity, generates wealth Absolutely wrong. Wealth is created by converting raw materials into goods and services. > [@treis](#): > > According to your argument its the same. According to my argument donating to charity is better becuase you reduce the suffering of people. It’s worse because you are taking your wealth and splitting it between you and someone else who isn’t producing anything. You take that same wealth and pay someone to do or make something, they production has increased by your labor as well as the other person’s. Not that you shouldn’t help people in need get back on their feet or provide for those who can’t provide for themselves, but it’s better to invest than to give charity. > [@Dangerosa](#): > > Actually, thats one of the things that makes this debate most interesting. While shiny stones certainly make a very good living for a lot of people, the diamond industry in particular isn’t exactly a bastion of ideal capitalist free trade. Slave labor, often involving children. Siphoning profits for to fund war. Black markets. Monopoly (which is one thing economist tend to agree can be a problem in a free market economy - if efficiency is the goal). > > You are debating as if the exchange is always voluntary and captialist free markets always work. Neither is true, no more so than “charity always reaches the people who need it.” Most markets aren’t completely efficient, none are completely equitable. Free markets are the ideal. Monopolies, cartels, price fixing, slave and child labor are all distortions of the free market. As it relates to the debate, it is much better to have people producing something and focus on correcting the working conditions than to simply not have them work at all and support them with handouts. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/193 "2005-05-09T02:05:29Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > It’s worse because you are taking your wealth and splitting it between you and someone else who isn’t producing anything. You take that same wealth and pay someone to do or make something, they production has increased by your labor as well as the other person’s. Not that you shouldn’t help people in need get back on their feet or provide for those who can’t provide for themselves, but it’s better to invest than to give charity. Did the conversation \*\* fiveyearlurker \*\* and I happen in some alternate universe? We just spent the last 10 posts going over this. You still create jobs and people still produce stuff the only difference is that they produce food and medicine instead of diamonds and plasma TVs. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/194 "2005-05-09T02:17:54Z")
> [@treis](#): > > All those people that worked to produce cat food would instead work to produce food, medicine, clothing and shelter. There is basically a fixed but increasing capacity to produce goods and services. A part of that goes to create food, clothing, shelter and medical care for the workers. The surplus of that production goes to whatever goods and services the society values. Whether those goods are food for hungry people or yachts for the rich, people will be employed in producing them. If this were a computer game, I could just reassign that cat food worker to medicine production, but are you sure that in the real world the skills to make cat food are transferrable to making medicine? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/195 "2005-05-09T02:24:45Z")
Not immediately but just like the buggy whip manufacturers and telegraph operators people gain the necessary skills. I think we are drastically overestimating the amount of money it would take to meet the basic needs of poor people. I doubt we would all have to become ascetic hermits like someone previously said in this thread. What we would have to deal with is 27" TVs instead of HD Plasma sets, Hondas instead of Benz’s and Cubix Zirconia’s instead of Diamonds. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/196 "2005-05-09T02:42:43Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I think we are drastically overestimating the amount of money it would take to meet the basic needs of poor people. I doubt we would all have to become ascetic hermits like someone previously said in this thread. What we would have to deal with is 27" TVs instead of HD Plasma sets, Hondas instead of Benz’s and Cubix Zirconia’s instead of Diamonds. Sure _if the money donated could be applied with 100% efficiency toward the goal of reducing misery_. In reality, though, it’s the corruption and thievery of screwed-up governments that prevent populations from benefitting from foreign aid or setting up their own productive industries. I suppose the example you _should_ be describing is buying a HD plasma set, or buying a 27" TV and flushing the money saved down the nearest toilet. ---
**Author:** ![BabaBooey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dfb087/32.png) [@BabaBooey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BabaBooey)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/197 "2005-05-09T02:57:06Z")
And won’t diminishing returns apply? If plasma TV production stopped and 27" televisions replaced them, I doubt it would be necessary to employ 100% of the plasma makers in order to produce the necessary number of 27" televisions. Apply this to 100% of luxuries and I’d suspect it would cause quite an unemployment problem, increasing the number of people that we’d now need to support. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/198 "2005-05-09T02:59:53Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Sure if the money donated could be applied with 100% efficiency toward the goal of reducing misery. In reality, though, it’s the corruption and thievery of screwed-up governments that prevent populations from benefitting from foreign aid or setting up their own productive industries. You’re right we are better of spending that money in the 100% efficient industries with absolutely no corruption or thievery. I didn’t realize we had to explicitly say that you are under no ethical obligation to donate money that will just be stolen or wasted. However there are still plenty of people in need and plenty of orginizations able to provide that need basically corruption and waste free. Of course as with any originization when you increase the size there will be some waste and corruption but this is the same whether it be a charity or a corporation. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/199 "2005-05-09T03:05:52Z")
> [@BabaBooey](#): > > And won’t diminishing returns apply? If plasma TV production stopped and 27" televisions replaced them, I doubt it would be necessary to employ 100% of the plasma makers in order to produce the necessary number of 27" televisions. Apply this to 100% of luxuries and I’d suspect it would cause quite an unemployment problem, increasing the number of people that we’d now need to support. The people that lose their jobs making plasma TVs will be employed in those industries that provide food, clothing, shelter and medicine to the poor. Just as the people who produced type writers switched to producing computers the people who produce plasma TVs will switch to producing aid. All that is happening is that demand is switching from TVs to relief goods which is no different from demand switching from Tickle Me Elmos to Beanie Babies. ---
**Author:** ![BabaBooey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dfb087/32.png) [@BabaBooey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BabaBooey)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/200 "2005-05-09T03:15:21Z")
But you’re missing my point. Jobs that provide food, clothing, shelter and medicine to the poor simply won’t be able to efficiently employ all of those that stop making luxury items. If soft drinks were a 2 company market and Pepsi were to go out of business, fewer than 100% of those people would be able to find employment with Coke. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334.md?page=11)