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.
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.
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.
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.
The illustration of Bob’s Bugatti needs some clarification as to how it relates to your question.
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?
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?
Do you make a distinction between someone in danger of dying, and someone about to be killed?
Does it make a difference that my job is to research cancer, and I’m producing cancer drugs?
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.
As an incidental note, this thread reminds me an an earlier, charming effort 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.
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely wrong. Wealth is created by converting raw materials into goods and services.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.