# How is any luxury spending ethical?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334
**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:** 3
### Author:  [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/41 "2005-05-04T18:44:43Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#):
>
> Even if you’re not morally obligated to help, what good reason is there not to help?
Begs the question. If you’re not obligated to “A”, then you do not need a “good reason” to NOT-“A”. NOT-A becomes the default.
(Randians would say that you can engage in as much virtuous deeds as you want, as long as you do it exclusively out of your own will and not because it is “expected”)
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/42 "2005-05-04T19:04:31Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#):
>
> Even if it were true that the majority of drugs are coming from government funded labs (it isn’t. For every drug that you can name that has come out of government funded labs in the past twenty years I’ll name over 100 that came out of private funded labs) do you think that the people working in government funded labs pay their rent with good intentions and sunshine? They expect to be paid for their innovations as well. As well they should.
>
> Again, as does the truck driver who delivers the drug, the pharmacist who dispenses it, the warehouse builder who builds the buildings to store it, the farmer who feeds the scientists, and the teachers who educate the next generation of scientists.
>
> 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 (I’m not arogant enough to think it’s a whole lot…).
We can take the debate over antibiotics elsewhere, because its kind of a tangent, but I know that 5 of the 7 drugs currently used to treat TB come either directly out of a government lab, or from government-funded grants to pharmaceutical companies.
It’s beside the point though. Your make two arguments, I’ll address them separately.
1. Buying luxury items helps the economy which raises all boats.
This has several major flaws. First, the marginal impact of your purchase of a luxury item on the economy is nothing compared to the marginal impact of your buying a course of antibiotics for someone. Second, helping the US economy does not necessarily mean that the economies of sub-saharan African countries (for example) are better off. Indeed, it might mean the opposite (concentration of wealth issues). Third, this assumes trickle-down economics works. I’m not saying it doesn’t, but I think its a proposition that requires more support than your tacit assumption of its truth.
1. If everyone gives up luxury items, there will be no incentive to work.
There are, of course, many incentives to work other than pay. I imagine that most scientists working at a government-lab could be making more money elsewhere. They are working at the lab because they get some other reward from it (like developing drugs to save thousands of lives). Essentially, your question is why would someone be a corporate lawyer if they end up taking home as much pay as a fast food worker. Well, I can think of a few reasons (and I’m sure you can too).
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#):
>
> do you think that the people working in government funded labs pay their rent with good intentions and sunshine? They expect to be paid for their innovations as well.
But again, I’m not proposing communism, or that everyone live in poverty. How does not purchasing luxury items equal not getting a salary?
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/43 "2005-05-04T19:09:16Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#):
>
> Begs the question. If you’re not obligated to “A”, then you do not need a “good reason” to NOT-“A”. NOT-A becomes the default.
> (Randians would say that you can engage in as much virtuous deeds as you want, as long as you do it exclusively out of your own will and not because it is “expected”)
You’re right, if you’re not obligated, then Not-A is the default. I worded that question poorly. But I think our moral intuitions tell us that, for example, if a doctor walks by someone who is choking without helping the person choking, the doctor needs a good reason for not having helped. The doctor may have a good reason (the person choking is evil, or they fear malpractice, etc.) However, without a good reason we might call that doctor immoral, right?
---
### Author:  [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/44 "2005-05-04T19:12:19Z")
> [@catsix](#):
>
> You’re talking about people choosing to give away every cent over what it would take them to maintain basal survival. I’m wondering what incentive I would have to work as hard as I do in order to earn anything beyond basal survival if I were just going to give it away.
>
> It’s still a question of me working and getting nothing in return.
If the argument is that ethically speaking you have an obligation to give to the poor then I don’t think a valid counter argument is that I won’t work without incentives. Ethically speaking you ought to help others when you can whether it be saving a drowning child or running DNA sequences in a lab. If the outcome of an action is good you taking that action shouldn’t hinge on a direct or lack thereof benefit to you.
Certainly practically speaking paying you luxuries for say an AIDS vaccine will create a favorable outcome. But does that make it ethically acceptable for a person to horde wealth? Clearly the overall outcome is good but it would be even better if you took the wealth you gained from your work and spent it on feeding the poor instead of a luxury yacht. I would argue that you have an ethical obligation to take actions that have the best outcome not necessarily just a good one.
In other words an argument can be made that it is ethically right for an unequal distribution of wealth becuase it produces a good argument but that does not justify the individual to horde wealth.
> [@catsix](#):
>
> Voluntary redisitribution of everything above a very minimal level of survival, right? Because everything beyond survival is luxury.
>
> What rational reason does a person have for toiling away for free and living an uncomfortable life of minimal survival when for the same amount of toiling they could have much more comfort?
I don’t think ethics provides a motivation for doing anything rather a guide to what should be done. For example if I accidentally run in to someones car ethics tells us that I should take responsibility for my actions. But what rational reason (excluding avoidance of legal punishment) do I have for taking responsibility? The best benefit to me would be to drive off and not pay for the damage I caused.
---
### Author:  [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/45 "2005-05-04T19:52:08Z")
> [@Gaudere](#):
>
> For me, simply, the reason why I spend some money on luxuries rather then giving it all to the poor is because I am not a good enough person, and the problems of the poor are not immediately in my face. There are poor in my city, but few go very hungry. If someone was dying right in front of us of a disease that could be cured for $10 and we had to choose the pay $10 for medicine for them or go to a movie, I think practically everyone would choose to buy the medicine; but as long as the dying poor are distant or someone else’s problem people will sometimes choose to go to a movie instead.
Yep. I’m fundamentally selfish. When suffering is not immediately in front of me, I choose to pretend it doesn’t exist so I can continue to live my comfortable life. Even when suffering is right in front of me, I often choose to believe the suffering of others was their own fault so I don’t need to accept any responsibility. This has often proven not to be the case, but its more comfortable to live with this rationalization.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/46 "2005-05-04T19:54:13Z")
Funny, I feel no sense of guilt or ethical dilemma whatsoever for buying or wanting to buy luxury items.
I must be a freakazoid, or something, _if_ the OP’s position is sound.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/47 "2005-05-04T20:05:35Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> Funny, I feel no sense of guilt or ethical dilemma whatsoever for buying or wanting to buy luxury items.
>
> I must be a freakazoid, or something, if the OP’s position is sound.
What is your moral intuition about the doctor situation? (three posts up)
---
### Author:  [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/48 "2005-05-04T20:08:03Z")
Right there with you, **Bryan**. I worked for my goodies, and I have absolutely no problem with enjoying them. People are starving…so? This affects me how? If I give to those less fortunate, it is because it makes me feel good, not because I feel it is ethical.
Life is unfair. Deal with it.
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/49 "2005-05-04T20:10:01Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#):
>
> This has several major flaws. First, the marginal impact of your purchase of a luxury item on the economy is nothing compared to the marginal impact of your buying a course of antibiotics for someone.
I’m not convinced that this is actually the case. The latter has the disadvantage of being a **one-time** beneficence; the former has the advantage of sustaining a **long-term** income stream for the producers of the purchased goods. (That is, the two cases correspond to “give a man a fish” and “teach a man to fish”.)
> [@](#):
>
> Essentially, your question is why would someone be a corporate lawyer if they end up taking home as much pay as a fast food worker. Well, I can think of a few reasons (and I’m sure you can too).
Unless you can come up with reasons that will motivate **a sufficient number of people to fill the various essential and demanding professions** , you can’t refute the basic argument that financial incentives are necessary.
> [@](#):
>
> But again, I’m not proposing communism, or that everyone live in poverty. How does not purchasing luxury items equal not getting a salary?
I should think that it’s obvious that giving away your money instead of using it to purchase what you want is effectively equivalent to not getting that much money in the first place. (Hell, the IRS recognizes as much by providing a deduction for it.)
---
### Author:  [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/50 "2005-05-04T20:26:24Z")
> [@](#):
>
> If every day people die for lack of a few dollars to buy antibiotics or clean water, how is it ethically justifiable to spend money on a set of pearl earrings or a nice car? How is this situation different from setting up a swimming pool in your backyard while your neighbor dies of thirst? Isn’t the latter case clearly unethical? How are they different?
Well, let me first address your profound misunderstanding of economics. In any complex economy, people have a variety of needs and wants - some trivial, some essential to survival. All of these needs and wants create a demand for work to be done. We live in a society where technology has made it possible for 99% of us to not be engaged to critical survival activities - hunting, gathering, etc. That means that most of our resources are free to develop less critical (IOW luxury) items. No matter how stupid or ostentatious a good or service, it is derived from someone’s labor that they are compensated for. It is that constant exchange of goods, services, skills and capital that increases everyone’s standard of living.
> [@](#):
>
> Let me pre-empt some answers.
>
> 1. Don’t give me any Malthusian crap. It isn’t true that if we save one life, another just dies of starvation or whatever. There is more than enough food and water on this planet for everyone – its a distribution problem. Besides, there are better ways to control the population than letting people die of horrible diseases.
Well, yes. It is in fact a distribution problem. Very few people starve to death because they can’t afford to buy enough food to survive. The majority of widespread famine is caused by war, natural disaster and corruption.
> [@Zhao Daoli](#):
>
> Virtually all of us enjoy the priviledge of having been born into a society that offers halfway decent education for free, etc. Why does that priviledge not become an obligation to help those who are not as fortunate?
Because it isn’t. An am in no way obligated to give a shit about my next door neighbor and there is no moral way you can force me to. And your “obligation” sounds an awful lot like a Robin Hood-esq wealth distribution scheme.
> [@Zhao Daoli](#):
>
> Oh, and no Reaganomics either (unless you’re genuinely willing to defend the position that buying luxury items is a more efficient way to help someone dieing of tuberculosis than to give them antibiotics)
I’m not sure if you really understand Reaganomics, in theory or how it was actually applied:
> **[Reaganomics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics)**
>
> Reaganomics (/reɪɡəˈnɒmɪks/; a portmanteau of \[Ronald\] Reagan and economics attributed to Paul Harvey), or Reaganism, refers to the neoliberal economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies are commonly associated with and characterized as supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, or voodoo economics by opponents, while Reagan and his advocates preferred to call it free-market economics.
> The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to r...
The theory is basically sound - government is a horrible distributor of resources compared to the free market. Better to cut government spending (Reagan did not really cut spending) and lower taxes to stimulate economic growth. This would allow businesses to grow, hire more workers and meet more of the needs and wants of society. I know this is contrary to neo-hippy liberal bullshit economics but I’m going to stick with what I know.
I don’t know shit about tuburculosis but I do know that a society with a healthy economy more able to meet the needs of it’s people than a society on welfare.
In any event, I am a more in favor of fixing the systems that allow people to learn to fish than giving 99% of the fish that I catch away. It puts me in a perpetual state of depriving myself of the rewards while others live off my labor, and that’s not much of an incentive.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/51 "2005-05-04T21:07:29Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#):
>
> What is your moral intuition about the doctor situation?
I wouldn’t automatically attach that label, and general legal standard (as I understand it) regarding watching people die is that one doesn’t _need_ a reason to not intervene, unless a positive duty already exists. No such duty is legally attached to holding an M.D. in the sense that failing to act could lead to criminal charges, though regional licensing regulations may come into effect. For example, to get a medical license in New York requires “good moral character”. Whether immorality per se can cause one to _lose_ a license is unclear, as is whether or not your example would be judged by a licensing board as immoral.
My own general definition of “moral” requires a denied or embraced negative. One is _moral_ if they have an opportunity (and perhaps personal incentive) to do something evil and choose not to. One is _immoral_ if they recognize an opportunity to do evil (without an overpowering incentive) and pursue it. Doing something _good_ (or declining to do something good) doesn’t really enter into it. The exception is the positive duty mentioned above. If I have a child, I am morally obliged to see to that child’s needs. It would be _immoral_ to deliberately ignore those needs.
The doctor who walks by is not immoral, by my standard. He _might_ be considered unethical, if his membership in a professional medical association imposes an ethical standard on its members. The “good moral character” standard of New York strikes me as a bit slippery. It might be interesting to look into how many medical licenses have been lifted in New York on moral grounds.
So to answer your question, I don’t find the doctor’s behaviour to be immoral. He doesn’t need a reason to do nothing. Similarly, I don’t need a reason to buy a Lexus, even if I have to walk past a choking person to get to the dealership.
---
### Author:  [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/52 "2005-05-04T21:31:25Z")
Should the Doctor help the choking victim \*\* Bryan Ekers \*\*?
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/53 "2005-05-04T21:34:02Z")
> [@treis](#):
>
> Should the Doctor help the choking victim \*\* Bryan Ekers \*\*?
Sure, he should. But he’s not immoral if he doesn’t.
---
### Author:  [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/54 "2005-05-04T21:44:07Z")
I guess I am a bit confused by something here. Ethics and morals are a guide on how to act in a certain situation. If you act according to morals or ethics you are acting moral or ethical but if you take the opposite choice you are acting immoral or uunethical. It seems to me that according to your morals or ethics he should help the victim but you don’t consider the contrayer action immoral or unethical?
---
### Author:  [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/55 "2005-05-04T22:05:27Z")
> [@Zhao Daoli](#):
>
> You’re right, if you’re not obligated, then Not-A is the default. I worded that question poorly. But I think our moral intuitions tell us that, for example, if a doctor walks by someone who is choking without helping the person choking, the doctor needs a good reason for not having helped. The doctor may have a good reason (the person choking is evil, or they fear malpractice, etc.) However, without a good reason we might call that doctor immoral, right?
You said it, in such a case he DOES need “good reason” because in your example the society has established a formal structure of professional ethics (not just “moral intuition”) that creates an obligation – in this case, that there exists an immediate, direct confrontation of imminent danger to party A with the ability of party B to actually save party A, as long as B does not place himself or others at undue further risk (of lawsuits, of evil person A killing other people, etc.).
OTOH, from the point of view of his personal morals and professional ethics, he may still feel that he is ethically entitled to choose that his regular practice of medicine is going to be as doctor-to-the-stars helping the Posh Crowd get over their drug habits, making money hand over fist at it, rather than putting in long nights in a Public Health Service clinic across town treating poor kids and the elderly at a government-service scale salary.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/56 "2005-05-04T22:09:30Z")
> [@treis](#):
>
> I guess I am a bit confused by something here. Ethics and morals are a guide on how to act in a certain situation. If you act according to morals or ethics you are acting moral or ethical but if you take the opposite choice you are acting immoral or uunethical. It seems to me that according to your morals or ethics he should help the victim but you don’t consider the contrayer action immoral or unethical?
Okay, the situation may _seem_ confusing becuase the thread started asking if performing a particular act (while declining to perform another particular act) was ethical, i.e. buying a luxury instead of feeding your neighbor, whereas that doctor question was specifically about morals.
My working definitions:
Morality: A standard of behaviour imposed by a society on its citizens. Among relatively liberated societies, the requirements are generally to _not_ perform certain acts; typically violent or hurtful in nature, damaging to persons, animals or property. These standards exist to (ideally) keep the society from collapsing into chaos.
Ethics: A standard of behaviour imposed on a subgroup of a society on the members of that subgroup. Typically, membership in the subgroup is a voluntary, i.e. a professional association. These are also generally requirements to not perform harmful acts, as well as report the harmful acts of other members of the subgroup. These standards exists to (ideally) keep the subgroup from losing credibility/respect within the larger society.
I tend to view ethics and morals as guides to keep people from doing bad things (which would make them unethical and immoral), not to encourage them toward good things, especially since “good” is harder to define (with the exception of the existence of a positive duty).
---
### Author:  [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/57 "2005-05-04T22:10:04Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#):
>
> he may still feel that he is ethically entitled to choose that his regular practice of medicine is going to be as doctor-to-the-stars helping the Posh Crowd get over their drug habits, making money hand over fist at it, rather than putting in long nights in a Public Health Service clinic across town treating poor kids and the elderly at a government-service scale salary.
And of course, if he can actually find the time to do BOTH well, then by all means let him drive the Mercedes and wear the diamond cufflinks…
---
### Author:  [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/58 "2005-05-04T22:15:55Z")
> [@silenus](#):
>
> Right there with you, **Bryan**. I worked for my goodies, and I have absolutely no problem with enjoying them. People are starving…so? This affects me how?
[hijack]
I wonder how many who respond in this fashion are Christians.
It seems to me that a lot of people who are conservatives (“I want my money and I’m going to enjoy it, and I don’t give a damn about no stinking poor people”) are also Christians (“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me” (Matt. 19:21).")
Is the irony not obvious to them?
[/hijack]
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/59 "2005-05-04T22:23:55Z")
> [@Polerius](#):
>
> I wonder how many who respond in this fashion are Christians. ]
I can’t speak for silenus, but _I’m_ not Christian. What’s your point?
---
### Author:  [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334/60 "2005-05-04T23:55:28Z")
> [@Clothahump](#):
>
> Here’s a concept that liberals/socialists never seem to grasp.
> .
> .
> .
Well, to your credit, at least you didn’t bring up abortion…
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-any-luxury-spending-ethical/302334.md?page=4)