This is a rather open philosophical debate I know. However, I would like to hear your opinion on the following:
Given a very humanistic and empathetic view on what is “morally correct” (good for all) :
Can one either use “pure morality” (based on what is “good” in the broad sense of the word) and/or “moral logic” for having objects that are more expensive or is it hypocritical to argue for what is good is you do have luxury items?
What definition of “luxury items” are you using? In some, computers are luxury items. So are TVs and cars. Heck, some probably even put beds and anything above the most basic of foodstuffs into that category!
In many areas, clean, fresh (and drinkable) water is a luxury.
The topic reminds me of the luxury bag discussion that went on in the Pit awhile ago.
My personal feelings on the subject are that it isn’t immoral per se for people to have luxury items if they buy them with money they’ve rightfully earned, as long as they aren’t depriving other people for whom they have a direct moral responsibility. Like parents buying a nice car when they can’t afford to provide their kids with food, I suppose. I admit it’s a rather grey definition, but I don’t think it’s a question that can be answered in absolute terms.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with acquiring wealth by lawful means. That’s pretty much the goal of capitalism.
Surely that begs the question of whether capitalism is moral.
Personally I don’t think there is anything wrong with having luxuries. I think HazelNutCoffee’s concept is a good one.
The comments so far are on target.
Assuming the OP means “expensive” items (Gucci handbags, Rolex watches, Mercedes, etc.) and if one should feel guilty about owning such items?
No.
I don’t own any of the above, but certainly don’t begrudge anyone who does. If I won the lottery, I would most certainly buy a grand home, a few nice cars, nice clothes etc. Why not? If I only bought a modest home, a Hyundai and clothes from the Gap would that make me a better person?
I think the super-wealthy should at least make an effort to give some back - be it to charity or employee benefits - but I see no reason they shouldn’t get the huge flat screen television in their theater room at home, or take a six week vacation to the Bahamas on their private jet. For some, luxury is grand - for others is going out to dinner once a week/month/year…and sadly, for others luxury is having a roof over your head and running water.
I’ve never seen the logic in this. When you spend money, whether on necessities or luxuries, where do you think the money goes? Whoever you pay spends it on other things, and eventually it gets spread out over the entire economy (both domestic and global). It really doesn’t matter what your original purchase was, everybody down the line benefits. If you want to give to a charity, fine, but you’re also helping people by buying anything.
And to deprive yourself of any luxuries until every last kid in the world has shoes . . . that’s just altruism run amok.
Witness the recent economic crisis. When people stop buying things they want, other people, further down the food chain, lose their jobs and can no longer afford to buy the things they need (such as their house.)
No, I don’t think so. I do think the more money you sink into something (a particular company or whatever) the more burden there is on you to make sure it’s an ethical company that’s not exploiting people (and yes, I realize exploitation is relative nowadays.) I agree with DMark that people should be giving back, though I wouldn’t limit it to the super wealthy, and I wouldn’t limit it to charity either. A little time goes a long way. I just think people should try to help each other out. That’s irrespective of wealth I guess.
The answer is “no” and it disturbs me that people think like this.
People are not poor because other people have more stuff. People are poor because for whatever reason, through their own poor judgement or external circumstances acting againt them, they are unable to either develop or exchange their expertise and skills into something that creates value for someone else. Or if they are able to do this to create a stream of revenue for themselves, they are unable or unwilling to turn that revenue into wealth sustaining assets.
Really the best way for the wealthy to “give back” to society is to spend their money.
No (and I say this as someone not of a capitalist bent.)
But that said, luxury property (i.e. items) are not immoral in-and-of themselves, only if they were created or obtained in an immoral fashion, such as: sweatshop produce or stolen goods or rhino horns or somesuch. But Gucci bags, sports cars, gold watches etc. are their own punishment, IMO.
To be fair :some people are poor because some other people have more stuff - and they took it from the first lot at gunpoint. See e.g many third-world countries
Pet ownership is typically a luxury, and yet various studies show that having a pet can make someone healthier, less stressed, and more productive. As a general rule, this also enables someone to make greater contributions to society.
So no, having luxury items is not inherently immoral. Some luxury items are admittedly decadent, perhaps even difficult to justify. That’s why I don’t go for ostentatious jewelry. Certain other luxury items, however, can ultimately assist us in being productive members of society.
I don’t see anything wrong with owning luxury items, as long as you can afford them (ie, don’t go into debt to buy them or deprive your family of necessities.)
I think it is at least somewhat immoral to have luxury items (though I don’t know how to think about “inherently immoral”).
Something like a billion people. or triple the US population, lives on less than $1 per day.
Generally purchases put money into the economy where it travels around, which creates wealth, but they also generally increase demand, which drives prices up. Also, some consumption uses finite resources like fossil fuels and minerals. Moreover, some commodities involve cruel and abusive supply systems, for example the tantalum that is used in consumer electronics being mined by child slave labor.
Gandhi said we should consider our next action in terms of how it will affect the very poorest person on Earth. This is a tall order. Most of us do not come anywhere near this, and have long trails of immoral choices. I sure do. I think striving for responsible spending and helpfulness are about the best most of us can aspire to.
It’s not immoral to want to have beautiful, well-made things that enrich your life. Everyone should have a standard of living that not only meets their basic needs, but provides them with a stimulating, enjoyable environment. As others have noted, the definition of ‘luxury’ is a relative one - the small, countertop dishwasher I have in my kitchen wouldn’t be much of a luxury to the head of the Bank of Sweden, but it would certainly be riches beyond the wildest dreams of an impoverished mother in the ghettos of someplace like Kolkata.
The crux of the problem lies in consumption solely for consumption’s sake - “I should have this item simply because I can afford it.” Here under capitalism, where the inequality gap is such that the combined wealth of the poorest 50% of the world’s population is matched by the combined wealth of less than 1% of the world’s richest, the luxury consumption of that tiny fraction is grossly immoral. The money they throw away on luxury items just to have them could be far better spent - to say nothing of the fact that it’s pretty much just money being thrown around at the top of society with very little of it trickling down.
Olentzero - You have a countertop dishwasher? Can you provide a link - I’ve never hear of such a thing.
As far as luxury, I don’t think it’s inherently immoral. What you do to acquire the wealth to buy such things might be immoral, or buying things while your family does without, that could be immoral. But if I want diamond-studded muck boots to wear to clean stalls, that’s okay. I couldn’t do fur-lined, because I couldn’t justify the deaths of those mink to line my boots.
StG
If I stop buying the expensive goods produced by exploited Third World labor, they lose their jobs. I don’t see how that makes them better off.
I could donate the same amount to charity, but that doesn’t address their long-term needs for employment.
It’s like that Fair Trade coffee they are always trying to sell me at church. It is supposed to encourage sustainability, because the Vietnamese took over the coffee market or something. So I am supposed to buy the more expensive coffee, which [list=a][li]kind of sucks for the Vietnamese, and []encourages the Africans to stick to their one-commodity production economy, and []discourages the efficient production of coffee.[/list][/li]
Or some damn thing. I can never get the lady who sells the stuff to tell a straight story.
Regards,
Shodan
Well put. I agree 100%.