How is any luxury spending ethical?

Great Debates
21

Poverty is inevitable. Wealth is not.

If you took all the material possessions in the world and divided them up so that everybody had an equal share, you’d end up with a world full of poor people. If you divide material possessions up unequally instead, you will still have a majority of poor people but you can create a small minority of wealthy people. And history will show you that almost all human progress, including the creation of new wealth, has been made by wealthy people.

So unfair as the system is at any given moment, it’s the only one that works at all in making the world a better place over the long run. So shut up, stop doing your superior dance, and start using the wealth you were given to make the world a better place.

22

A most modest proposal, Mr. Swift.

23

How is any luxury spending ethical? By transferring some of my excess of necessities to someone with a deficit of same, in exchange for something that neither of us needs, that’s how.

The question of how much of the $500 for the sneakers ends up in the hands of someone who really needs it is another topic entirely, about fair trade. But since the last pair of trainers I bought cost UK£5, and the previous pair were seven years old, I don’t really have a dog in that particular fight.

24

Since you brought her up, I might point out that Scrooge was a much nicer person and a “better Christian” than Mother Teresa, who used the funds donated to her “hospitals” to fly around the world campaigning against birth control, abortion and divorce, while her poor “patients” received nothing in the way of medication or pain relief. She is a perfect example of someone who should have been “spreading her wealth” but failed to come across.

(Slight hijack, but using “Mother Teresa” as shorthand for “all that is good” really rankles me)

25

“A man gives half a guinea for a dish of green peas. How much gardening does this occasion? how many labourers must the competition to have such things early in the market, keep in employment? You will hear it said, very gravely, ‘Why was not the half-guinea, thus spent in luxury, given to the poor? To how many might it have afforded a good meal?’ Alas! has it not gone to the industrious poor, whom it is better to support than the idle poor? You are much surer that you are doing good when you pay money to those who work, as the recompence of their labour, than when you give money merely in charity.”

-Samuel Johnson

26

One argument I have heard about this is that there are two kinds of moral obligations: negative and positive. Negative obligations are mandatory: You MUST NOT murder. You MUST NOT torture. YOU MUST NOT lie. (with the usual caveats for greater good, etc). Positive obligations are things you SHOULD do–not refraining from actions, as negative obligations are, but taking action: You SHOULD help the poor. You SHOULD feed the hungry. These are recommended but not mandatory.

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.

I always thought Jesus’ quote re the ointment was grade-A jerkishness. “Oh, I’ll only be alive for a while (before I go to heaven and God’s right hand) so treat me special; poor people are a dime a dozen.” It does incline me to think it was an actual quote of an up-and-coming young demagogue, though.

27

Hmmm. With all due respect to Sam Johnson, I think some of these arguments about how buying luxuries is a more effective way to relieve the poor than giving them antibiotics are a little flimsy.

How much of the money that is spent on luxury goods actually goes to poor workers, as opposed to fattening the pocketbooks of owners and middlemen? (This is Malacandra’s “fair trade problem”.)

Even the argument that “well, at least the poor workers are getting some pittance out of my luxury purchase, whereas otherwise they’d be getting nothing at all” is kind of shaky. Sometimes it’s a valid argument, sure. But what about when rich entrepreneurs exploit resources for their luxury enterprises that would otherwise support their wage-slaving workers in less poverty? (Flower farms, beachfront property, exotic timber plantations…a lot of high-end commercial amenities can result in further enriching wealthy investors and owners while further impoverishing the workers.)

Greed does not always result in the most efficient allocation of resources, and the production of luxury goods frequently involves a lot of waste. We shouldn’t automatically assume that a thriving market in luxuries is necessarily a good thing for the poor. Just because commercial activity often creates more prosperity than charitable donation doesn’t mean it always does.

It may well be that a certain amount of luxury spending is actually better for general prosperity than none at all, and that poor people would actually suffer more if we all gave up all our luxuries in favor of charitable giving. But I suspect that people who would argue that therefore luxury spending is always good, and the best way to help the poor in any situation is to buy ourselves more treats, are simply kidding themselves.

28

As has been pointed out, the problem is not that there isn’t enough food and medicine to go around, it is a distribution problem. But of course, most people in the world aren’t literally starving to death. There are many people who are desparately impoverished, but very few people in the world that are actually starving. In a standard famine, it is fairly easy for food aid to reach the hungry. Pile food into a plane, fly to the country in question, load the food onto trucks, drive to the countryside, and distribute the food to anyone who needs it. Easy really. And done all the time.

So what about the people who are actually starving? They aren’t starving because of a lack of food, as I said it is fairly easy to ship food to starving people, even in the third world. They are starving because somebody is preventing those airplanes and trucks full of food from reaching the starving people. Those somebodies are people with guns who are likely to kill anyone who tries to distribute food. North Korea had a famine, while neighboring South Korea didn’t. Why couldn’t South Korea simply send North Korea food? Because the North Korean dictatorship wouldn’t allow it, refused to admit that there was a famine. Anyone from outside North Korea who tried to drive a truck full of food across the border would be killed. Why were people starving in Ethiopia? They were starving because they were driven off of their land into the desert by the bandits/soldiers/mafiosi who were having a civil war. Food could not be grown because anyone trying to farm would be killed. Food could sometimes reach the refugee camps, but it was difficult and dangerous because of the civil war.

Even in an absolutely impoverished country there will not be starvation as long as their is enough security available for relief organizations to deliver food without fearing death. The amount of food needed by the starving doesn’t cost very much by first-world standards, we don’t need to contribute more money or goods, the money is already there, we have literally tons of surplus food to give away. So how to prevent situations where relief organizations cannot deliver food to the starving? Good question.

War and dictatorship are what causes starvation, not poverty. So if you want to prevent starvation, giving more money to relief organizations won’t help much. Giving money to organizations that prevent war and dictatorship will help much more. Try to spread liberal democracy, capitalism and the rule of law all over the world. Join the military and fight dictators and terrorists. Join message boards and persuade people to embrace your goals. Argue against those who want dictatorship. Send radios, computers, and cell phones to the third world. Demand that your government refuses to support dictatorial regimes. Support efforts to topple existing dictatorial regimes. Support globalization. Support jobs for people in the third world. Support gender equality in the third world. Learn some science. Teach.

This is what will solve the problem of poverty and starvation, not simply giving more money. The monetary amount we need to give is trivial, it is already being done. The political, economic and social changes that we need to work for are much greater, and much more difficult, and are not complete even in First World countries. So get to work, and stop thinking you can solve the problem just by giving away MONEY.

29

Here’s a concept that liberals/socialists never seem to grasp.

It’s my money. Period, end of statement. I earned it. No one else has the right to tell me how to spend that money, nor should they even imagine in their wildest dreams that they have that right. If I choose to buy a set of pearl earrings instead of donating to the Red Cross, that is my decision and no one has the right to question it.

Somehow or another, people have developed this delusion that if someone earns more than someone else, he has this “moral” obligation to give some of that money to the other person. And that is bullshit, IMNSHO.

If I’m wrong, however, then would all the socialists who earn more than $75k a year please point out the error of my ways by sending me at least 10% of the difference between your income and $75k? I’ll be glad to provide a Paypal link for you to do so. And I really need the money. I have a daytime salary job, but I am trying to operate my own business in the evening and I could really use the help.

30

Actually, that is a lot of the problem. There is only a finite amount of goods to go around and a lot of people. The average American owns approximately $182,000 worth of posessions. If you divided up the world’s total wealth among every person in the world, everybody would have about $11,000 worth of stuff. Imagine what the world’s agriculture or health care systems would look like if everyone only had $11,000 to start from.

31

What constitutes a “luxury”? Pearl earrings, most likely. How about meat to eat? It surely must be more efficient to only eat vegetarian. What about air conditioning? Most of the third world population lives without that? Why shouldn’t we. Is clean water a luxury? How about if there is flavor to it? So therefore, is soda pop and beer a luxury? It can certainly be defined that way by someone who doesn’t have access to clean drinking water.

And is it “ethical” to give something? If I give someone a place to live, food and other necessities, don’t I create a disincentive for that person to find those things on his or her own?

The reality is that economic models which incent creation of a better life are those that seem to feed, clothe and house people the best. Not everyone is poor because of unavoidable circumstance, some people just make bad choices. How do you separate the two? Should you?

32

There is a curious amount of vitriol in a thread not ostensibly about politics that doesn’t directly attack anyone. What about the OP struck some people are a “superior dance?”

Anyway, since there are so many posts,  I'll try to just make some of the more salient points:

  1. I’m not asking whether such giving ought to be mandated by a government, so no need to debate communism.

  2. As for the arguments about incentive, I suppose you would have to be motivated by things other than material objects – love, family, knowledge, etc. But even if you believe humans aren’t capable of transcending consumer fetishism, lack of ** luxury items ** does not equal asceticism. The argument that there would be no wealth and innovation without billionaires is Ayn Randian fiction. Specifically, the argument that no one would produce antibiotics, etc., unless they were paid enormous sums is ridiculous. We can open a separate thread on where innovation comes from, but in the case of antibiotics, most of it comes from government-funded labs.

  3. Obviously in order to answer this question abstractly we need an ethical framework from which to discuss it. As others have pointed out, virtue ethics, utilitarianism and other theories all have their failings, so it isn’t clear which system to choose. But I guess what I was asking is how do * you * personally justify it.

  4. On the topic of obligation vs. supererogatory duty, I don’t think anyone has made an argument for why there is no moral obligation to give. Most have simply stated that this is the case, or offered a blatantly falacious slippery slope. Maybe it’s because the argument is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be spelled out, but spell it out for me anyway.

  5. ** Martin Hyde ** questions my assumptions, arguing that no charity gives 100% of donations. This is not true. There are many charities that give 100%, because they are all-volunteer and pay their own overhead. He also questions whether “throwing money” at the problem will fix it. No, buying antibiotics may not cure the world of tuberculosis, but it will cure one person. That’s enough (not to mention prevent that person from spreading the disease or creating a drug resistant strand). It costs $10 for a full course of anti-TB drugs which are effective 90% of the time.

  6. All the other arguments about people not giving because humans are greedy or what have you are tangents. I’m not asking why people don’t give. I’m asking why people think it’s OK not to.

Finally, **LonesomePolecat ** wonders whether I live the kind of life I’m “demanding.” Of course, I’m not demanding this of anyone, I was asking what everyone’s justification was. That said, I do think very carefully about every dollar I spend and whether it might be better spent on someone who needs it (and often decide to do just that).

p.s. SteveMB, offering succint arguments against specious rebuttals is not “arbitrarily rejecting” them.

33

I agree that we will not end poverty until vast political changes occur, but doesn’t change the moral calculus that you could still save a few lives instead of buying that nice couch.

As for the monetary amount needed being trivial, that is also true in terms of GDP. But you are wrong to say we are already giving enough. We are not. We have promised to give enough, but we haven’t given it yet.

It is your money. No one can force you to spend it in any way. But, as I thought was already painfully obvious, we’re no talking about men with guns taking your money and giving it to the poor. We’re talking about you choosing to do so.

But let’s not let this devolve into a discussion over equalizing everyone’s wealth. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about voluntary redistribution on a much smaller scale than you’re talking about.

Why all the knee-jerk anti-socialist reactions? Just because I included the words “Ethics” along with “luxury items”?

34

Stomp them strawmen into the ground! You’re brave and tough!

You’re right about one thing, I think. The only valid form of moral instruction is example.

35

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.

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?

36

Shib, thanks for thoughtful reply.

Is the argument that we can’t draw the line between soda pop and pearl earrings, or that any line would be arbitrary? If it’s the former, I disagree – let’s draw the line at items that cost more than $100, or $10,000, without which we can still live happy, productive lives. If its the latter, then yes, it might be arbitrary. But so are many definitions used in ethical calculus. I mean, let’s change the question to: how is buying a Mercedes ethical? Does that change your answer?

Yes, there is a sense in which this is true. There are apparently tribes in Sudan that have given up farming because they recieve so much food aid. But while this might function as an argument against food aid, it doesn’t work when it comes to antibiotics or clean water. Also, most people don’t die from laziness, more likely they are dying from things that they couldn’t avoid even if they had “incentive.”

No one’s arguing about changing economic models. It is entirely consistent to believe that, within a capitalist system, one is obligated to live modestly until no one else is dying from cheaply curable diseases. Again, those of you that believe that our economy depends on rich people buying fancy things are operating under the most simplistic of views about capitalism.

As for separating people that make bad choices from people in unavoidable circumstances, I think that it’s entirely possible. People stricken with disease, for example (and there are millions that die of cheaply curable diseases every year), didn’t “make a bad choice.” I you’re right to ask whether we should separate the two. If someone is starving, should we care that it’s his or her fault?

37

I realize now that I shouldn’t have used such a vague phrase as “luxury items.” I don’t feel like what I’m trying to get at actually requires me to defend the position that one ought to live in poverty oneself. But just in case that is what “my” position entails:

One rational reason for a person to do this is that he or she feels it’s moral to do so. There are a lot of people who act for moral reasons alone.

But I take issue with the assumption that a modest life is an uncomfortable one. It doesn’t take much to be comfortable, though it depends in part on what you’re used to. Perhaps you have to transition gradually.

Does your answer change when we phrase it this way?..What rational reason does person have for toiling away and then giving $100 to charity when for the same amount of toiling they could have a +$100-comfortable life?

38

Ah, but by preemptively deciding that a number of the arguments that many people will make are not valid and may be summarily disqualified right off the bat, makes your debater have to make their statement exclusively on terms you stipulate. Given the parameters you have specified in this thread, and the reactions to the posts made, I must reach the conclusion that I CAN NOT do that (prove the proposition “there is luxury spending that is ethical” to your satisfaction, on your terms). But this, however does not constitute proof either way, since I have not accepted that your proposition (luxury is not ethical), is the “default”.

39

I didn’t really expect people to respect my parameters as much as they, apparently, have. :slight_smile:

If my pre-empts are preventing you (or anyone else) from staking a position, by all means, make those arguments, as long as you respond to my initial rebuttals.

40

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…).