How is any luxury spending ethical?

[Paul_in_Qatar]

The OP poses a good question (one I once asked myself on these pages).

If we spent nothing on luxury, we would go some distance toward curing the ills of the world. But how far? Not as far you we would hope as such spending would produce perverse incentives that would erode its value.

Further, what sort of world would we have with none of the fine things in life, none of the frivolities or novelties? No opera houses, no art, no Simpsons, no cathedrals. Not a very nice world. Even more (to carry this to an extreme) the fine and decorative arts would be lost forever.

It would be a world of blandness and unhappiness.

Would we be willing to live in such a world? History has shown us the clear answer.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@treis

Absolutely, how dare they question my choice to buy a 50 million dollar yacht while people are starving.

Oh, they can question it all they like. They can even try to make the millionaire feel guilty, if that’ll make them happy. But if rule of law has any meaning; if a $50 million purchase is suspect, so should a $5 purchase. Ever spent five bucks on a toy, or a pack of cigarettes, or candy, instead of dropping it in a poorbox? Was your act ethical? Why?

And of course anyone who thinks it unethical to spend money on luxuries while people starve is just a communist.

Maybe not, but a possible consequence of that line of thinking should be recognized. What is a “luxury”? What is “starving” ? Could it eventually lead to a point where it is unethical for you to spend five bucks on candy while your neighbor’s child needs dental care? Where is the natural check point that would stop this slippery slope? Purchases more than $1 million vs. starvation? Purchases more than $100,000 vs. poverty? Puchases more than $1000 vs. social inequality? How rich can a person be before his pleasure purchases are unethical? Are all pleasure purchases unethical? What line of demarcation are you proposing?

A dirty rotten no good evil evil EVIL communist who must be crushed.

Heh. Well, closely watched, to be sure. Challenged and refuted whenever possible (I miss chumpsky; he was fun). Fortunately for Western society, idealistic college students tend to outgrow these beliefs as soon as they have children and start paying a mortgage.

And who can argue against freedom.

Are you free or not to spend your disposable income as you choose? If “freedom” is an inaccurate word, please suggest an alternate.

[Genghis_Bob]

@Bryan Ekers

Fine; my personal morally-based answer is I view with suspicion anyone who suggest that I shouldn’t spend my money as I choose. It is not unreasonable for me to assume that their next step is to declare that maybe I don’t deserve the money I have, and then I don’t need the money I have, and someone else needs it more.

As for the specific question (how is any luxury spending ethical?), it’s moot. Spending one’s money on luxuries isn’t a matter of ethics, it’s one of freedom.

Heck, nobody questions your right to spend your money as you choose; what’s at question is the goodness of the choices you make.

Spending your money is indeed a question of freedom; the choices you make are an issue of ethics, and that is the topic of this thread.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Genghis Bob

Spending your money is indeed a question of freedom; the choices you make are an issue of ethics, and that is the topic of this thread.

It’s not sufficiently established that how one spends one’s money and the state of one’s ethics are related, assuming the money was earned in an ethical manner (there may be an unspoken and unfounded assumption that rich people by default got that way through thievery) and is not spent in an unethical manner (i.e. knowingly buying stolen or illegal goods). A rich, honest person should have no ethical qualms about buying an expensive, legal product and it is irrational to suggest otherwise.

[Dangerosa]

No its not Bryan. Your ethics say it isn’t, but the thing about ethics is that they aren’t universal. I know ethical vegetarians - they don’t feel its ethical to kill animals for food. I don’t agree with that, it isn’t part of my ethical structure, but its certainly part of theirs. And it isn’t irrational simply because it isn’t part of your ethical set. Things may be unethical that are perfectly legal.

[Aangelica]

For me it’s a question of competing ethical behaviors. Yes, giving money to alleviate human suffering is an ethical good. I’m not sure anyone is actually positing that it’s not ethical to give money that could be spent on luxuries to help alleviate human suffering.

However, neither is it ethical for me to strip my life of all “luxury” items in order to give every cent over and above basic subsistence to any cause, no matter how worthy. For several reasons. First, because I’m aware of the affect that would have on my own personal morale. And it wouldn’t be pretty. Not because I’m a bad person for feeling the urge to eat well (as opposed to subsisting on 15 for a dollar top ramen so that I may send the remainder of my grocery budget to a charity of my choice), but because I have ethical qualms about treating anyone in a shabby fashion, including myself. Second, any changes I make in my lifestyle do not affect only myself - I have my SO to consider and one day soon I’ll have my children to consider. Is it ethical to deprive them of luxuries so that we may POSSIBLY benefit someone else? Third, I have duties and responsibilities other than to do everything in my power to alleviate human suffering. Fourth, because I’m not convinced of the utility of donating money in the cause of alleviating human suffering.

To elaborate on the fourth point: As has been pointed out a couple of times previously in this thread, a sizeable proportion of human suffering is taking place under circumstances such that mere application of fundage will not actually serve to alleviate the suffering. Given my income, geographic location, lack of skills that would be of service to alleviate suffering (no medical training, agricultural expertise, etc) and aforementioned other commitments and responsibilities, the only feasible way for me to translate the cash that would be spent on “luxury” items into alleviation of human suffering is through the time-honored medium of donating it to the charity of my choice. According to the American Institute of Philanthropy, in order to make their top grade for efficiency (the amount of cash actually getting to the intended recipients as opposed to being chewed up in administrative fees and expenses) you must get 75 cents on the dollar to the intended recipient. That’s the stat for the United States, where infrastructure isn’t a problem, where internal warfare isn’t a problem, where distribution mechanisms are at their best. I’d venture to say that most of the world’s suffering is taking place in locales who lack infrastructure, distribution mechanisms and peace. So at BEST in the US, only 75% of my charity dollars are hitting target - and that percentage starts dropping out of the US (where the suffering is more prevalent in my opinion).

Also weighing in is my knowledge that in many cases, there is already more than sufficient fundage if not to totally end suffering, then to drastically reduce it. The problem isn’t lack of money - it’s lack of other things. Giving my money to charities serving those needs is WASTE. They have the money they need! What they need is an end to warfare. Or possibly infrastructure (roads, for example!). Potentially a distribution scheme to get the materials to the people who need them. More money won’t solve the problem. Stripping my life of luxuries only to provide essentially futile contributions (in the sense that lack of funds isn’t the baseline issue in many cases) isn’t an ethical good for me. It’s wasteful.

Quite a lot of this is also a question of scale. If it’s a question of foregoing a gourmet dinner in favor of giving someone the money they need to have lifesaving medication, it’s a no brainer. Show me where to sign up! But the problem with this as an ethical question is that as you scale it up from a specific case to a general case, the question doesn’t travel well. There are ethical questions that scale up and down easily (Is murder ever ethical, is it ever ethical to cheat on your wife, etc etc etc). This isn’t one of them. The mere knowledge that there are people suffering (starving, dying of easily cured disease, etc) does not render spending decisions ethical or unethical on their face. There will ALWAYS be people suffering. There will always be people who starve. Or die of easily treatable diseases. There will probably always be war. The mere fact that there are people suffering does not per se make my decisions to purchase luxury items unethical. Just like the knowledge that there are people dying from treatable disease does not make my decision NOT to pursue a career in medicine unethical. While I agree that being a doctor is a fine, ethical choice, that does not make a decision NOT to pursue a career as a doctor an unethical choice.

Basically, it’s not an all or nothing proposition. Giving money to charities does not make the decision to use some money for a luxury item per se unethical.

[Richard_Parker]

There’s a more I want to say, but I’m at work, so I’ll just say two things.

1. Let’s stop speaking as if giving to a charity might “possibly” help some people. If you give to the right charity (they aren’t hard to find) you can be assured that you are definitely saving a life (lives).

2. The “money isn’t the problem” argument just doesn’t fly. No respected expert in the field believes that an influx of money from the developed world wouldn’t save millions of lives.

[Clothahump]

@Zhao Daoli

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”?

It wasn’t knee-jerk. But I am really amazed (and annoyed) that people think that they have a “moral” right to tell others what to do with the money they earn or to disapprove of what they choose to do with it. That attitude, to me, indicates a lack of ethics, not someone’s choice of whether or not to donate somewhere.

Actually, there really is no way to apply the term ‘ethical’ to the term ‘luxury spending’. If I choose to buy a Cadillac for $40k instead of buying a Toyota for $20k and donating the $20k difference to charity, there is absolutely nothing unethical about the decision. However, the OP seems to indicate that there is, and I disagree.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Dangerosa

No its not Bryan. Your ethics say it isn’t, but the thing about ethics is that they aren’t universal.

Doesn’t that render the whole thread pointless, if we have no stable definition of “ethics”? Even speaking in the most general possible terms, the U.S. is a nation where a citizen can buy a $50 million yacht, assuming he has $50 million. Would a thoerietical nation where such a purchase was frowned upon be more “ethical” than the U.S.? Is a vegetarian adhering to his own standard of behaviour more ethical than me adhering to my standard of behaviour, which includes meat-eating?

Clearly large luxury purchases are unethical (or at least suspect) in the mind of the OP. If there’s no universal ethical standard, then what’s the point of this discussion? We may as well be arguing over who has the “best” favourite colour.

[Dangerosa]

Or what the meaning of God is, which we do here all the time. Ethics itself is a huge “Great Debate”

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Dangerosa

Or what the meaning of God is, which we do here all the time. Ethics itself is a huge “Great Debate”

True, but doesn’t the OP’s position just come down to “By my ethical standards, some people are unethical”? He seems to be claiming some kind of victory when people respond negatively (calling responses “emotional” and “knee-jerk”) to the idea (surprise-surprise!)

Let’s see if he’ll acknowledge the following premises:
[ul][li]Millions of humans have starved and are starving.[/li][li]The vast vast majority of these humans live in nations without working democracies. Specifically, they live in nations with corrupt violent dictatorships or full-blown civil war.[/li][li]Food supplies are routinely stolen by these governments, or blocked by ongoing violence. Similarly, foreign aid is also routinely stolen or misappropriated.[*]It is unclear how any of this is the ethical responsibility of a private citizen who doesn’t live in any of these nations.[/ul][/li]
That last one, I expect, is a deal-breaker.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bryan Ekers

True, but doesn’t the OP’s position just come down to “By my ethical standards, some people are unethical”? He seems to be claiming some kind of victory when people respond negatively (calling responses “emotional” and “knee-jerk”) to the idea (surprise-surprise!)

Let’s see if he’ll acknowledge the following premises:

* Millions of humans have starved and are starving.
* The vast vast majority of these humans live in nations without working democracies. Specifically, they live in nations with corrupt violent dictatorships or full-blown civil war.
* Food supplies are routinely stolen by these governments, or blocked by ongoing violence. Similarly, foreign aid is also routinely stolen or misappropriated.
* It is unclear how any of this is the ethical responsibility of a private citizen who doesn't live in any of these nations.

That last one, I expect, is a deal-breaker.

First, the OP didn’t take any position. You may have taken the question as rhetorical, but I meant it genuinely (and stated so). I did pre-empt what I considered invalid responses, but I was earnestly seeking well-reasoned positions on either side.

If you don’t think some of these responses were knee-jerk or emotional, that’s fine. Knee-jerk is a loaded term that I probably shouldn’t have used.

I reject your second premise. From my study of the issue, it just isn’t true (India, for example, is a relatively stable democracy). Further, you imply that war/corruption is responsible for poverty. In truth, the causation isn’t one-way.

I agree with your third premise, but I think it is irrelevant to this debate, because we’re not talking about government-to-government aid, or food aid, necessarily.

I think your fourth premise is generally true: it isn’t clear what our ethical duties are (hence the long debate). Do we have a duty to clarify it? I think so. But I think its interesting that you imply that living in these nations would change our moral obligations. Why?

[clairobscur]

@Bryan Ekers

It is unclear how any of this is the ethical responsibility of a private citizen who doesn’t live in any of these nations.[/list]

.

Why would it matters if the private citizen live in one or these nation or not? What would it change from an ethical point of view?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Zhao Daoli

First, the OP didn’t take any position. You may have taken the question as rhetorical, but I meant it genuinely (and stated so). I did pre-empt what I considered invalid responses, but I was earnestly seeking well-reasoned positions on either side.

The question at the title of this thread betrays a position, though, or at least implies one. A more neutral question would have been “Is there any ethical implication to luxury spending?” By asking “How is any luxury spending ethical?” you appear (to me, at least, and I expect others) to be implying that it’s a given that luxury spending is unethical and you’re seeking a counterexample. The fact is, you haven’t proven your premise and it’s not surprising that reponses are more inclined to challenge that unproven premise instead of trying to prove that when someone buys a toy, they’re being ethical.

What you consider “invalid responses” are in fact perfectly fair game and your dismissals are inconvincing. Malthusian “crap”? Charities that can bypass “any sort of corrupt government” ? Why does a privelege not become an obligation (when it’s unproven that a privelege should become an obligation)? No good reason other than personal greed exists?

Unless my interpretation skills are grossly incorrect, this does not reflect an earnest request for well-reasoned debate. Rather, it’s a loaded question, supported by unproven premises and presented in a hostile manner.

I reject your second premise. From my study of the issue, it just isn’t true (India, for example, is a relatively stable democracy). Further, you imply that war/corruption is responsible for poverty. In truth, the causation isn’t one-way.

I’ll grant that India is by far the most democratic of the nations known to have suffered recent famine, but the degree of inefficiency by Western standards is extreme. Clean water is not available in large portions of the country, tropical diseases are widespread, crushing poverty is commonplace, as well as the damage of last December’s tsunami. Low-level war with Pakistan continues. India has massive problems which might gradually be lessened by improving infrastructure, efficiency and literacy. It will take some time.

I agree with your third premise, but I think it is irrelevant to this debate, because we’re not talking about government-to-government aid, or food aid, necessarily.

But the charities you describe as being able to casually bypass corruption… can’t. The regions worst hit by famine are among the worst hit by civil war and casual brutality. Aid workers have been killed in the Sudan for example. They’ve been kidnapped and killed in Iraq. It’s not a matter or just delivering the food; it’s delivering the food and not getting shot by violence-happy thugs in the process.

I think your fourth premise is generally true: it isn’t clear what our ethical duties are (hence the long debate). Do we have a duty to clarify it? I think so. But I think its interesting that you imply that living in these nations would change our moral obligations. Why?

I’m not implying anything, or at least I’m not trying to. Saying that A is not B doesn’t imply that not-A is B. I realize that may seem a bit hypocritical in light of how I started this post, but I’m pretty sure my implication (and I wasn’t consciously making one) is a lot less blatant that yours.

And we have an ethical duty to define our ethical duties? A bit circular, don’t you think?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@clairobscur

Why would it matters if the private citizen live in one or these nation or not? What would it change from an ethical point of view?

Well, call me crazy, but I’m going to assume that people who can buy $50 million yachts don’t generally live in the same countries where large numbers of people are starving, and while one might have an ethical obligation to obey the laws and pay the taxes of one’s own country, there is no similar obligation toward other nations and their citizens.

[Little_Nemo]

First, the OP didn’t take any position.

If you believe that, you need to go back and reread what you wrote.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bryan Ekers

The question at the title of this thread betrays a position, though, or at least implies one. A more neutral question would have been “Is there any ethical implication to luxury spending?” By asking “How is any luxury spending ethical?” you appear (to me, at least, and I expect others) to be implying that it’s a given that luxury spending is unethical and you’re seeking a counterexample. The fact is, you haven’t proven your premise and it’s not surprising that reponses are more inclined to challenge that unproven premise instead of trying to prove that when someone buys a toy, they’re being ethical.

What you consider “invalid responses” are in fact perfectly fair game and your dismissals are inconvincing. Malthusian “crap”? Charities that can bypass “any sort of corrupt government” ? Why does a privelege not become an obligation (when it’s unproven that a privelege should become an obligation)? No good reason other than personal greed exists?

Unless my interpretation skills are grossly incorrect, this does not reflect an earnest request for well-reasoned debate. Rather, it’s a loaded question, supported by unproven premises and presented in a hostile manner.

On reflection, you’re right. There is clear bias in the wording and questions of OP. But I don’t think it amounts to “here is my ethical system, and under it you are immoral.” I didn’t intend to be passing judgement on anyone…glass houses and all. I think my motives on that front have been unfairly impugned. I felt since the question is sort of counter-intuitive that it needed some defending for people to take it seriously.

@Bryan Ekers

I’ll grant that India is by far the most democratic of the nations known to have suffered recent famine, but the degree of inefficiency by Western standards is extreme. Clean water is not available in large portions of the country, tropical diseases are widespread, crushing poverty is commonplace, as well as the damage of last December’s tsunami. Low-level war with Pakistan continues. India has massive problems which might gradually be lessened by improving infrastructure, efficiency and literacy. It will take some time.

Yes, it will.

@Bryan Ekers

But the charities you describe as being able to casually bypass corruption… can’t. The regions worst hit by famine are among the worst hit by civil war and casual brutality. Aid workers have been killed in the Sudan for example. They’ve been kidnapped and killed in Iraq. It’s not a matter or just delivering the food; it’s delivering the food and not getting shot by violence-happy thugs in the process.

This is simply an empirical question about which we disagree. I believe there are (and I work with) charities that go into countries (even those with corrupt governments) and deliver medical and food aid without armed men hindering them. But even if you’re right that there are a significant number of places that are out of reach of these organizations, there are a certainly a lot of places that aren’t. We could still be helping those places.

@Bryan Ekers

And we have an ethical duty to define our ethical duties? A bit circular, don’t you think?

No, I don’t think saying that we ought to learn right from wrong is circular.

[Richard_Parker]

Out of curiousity, for those of you that believe that money won’t help solve the problems of extreme global poverty, why do you think the organizations on the front line of this battle (MSF, UNICEF, WHO, etc.) are asking for more money * to buy medicine and food *? Is it that they don’t really know what’s going on, or that they’re just trying to line their own pockets? Or is it that they are actually experts on the situation and know that while charitable giving won’t solve all of the worlds problems, it could solve a lot of them.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Zhao Daoli

Or is it that they are actually experts on the situation and know that while charitable giving won’t solve all of the worlds problems, it could solve a lot of them.

Sure, it would. It’s just unrelated to the ethics of luxury spending.

[CBCD]

Zhao Daoli, how do you justify the money you spend annually on high-speed Interent access and a Straight Dope forum membership, when there is a poor man in the next town over from you who can’t afford to take his sick baby to the doctor?