Sounds pretty moral to me.

Is the individual's right to life, liberty and property moral?

Is it your observation that its because of concern for others? Its not what I've observed, moslty they aren't turned on by trivial luxuries and/or are more concerned with value. I dont see them coverting ferrari's but giving the money to the poor instead (not that I have a large sample)

Its not exactly a concern for others. Its more a realization that buying gold faucets (as opposed to a private plane that might help efficiency) when you could provide 100 kids harelip operation if you stick to brass, makes you almost evil. But that doesn't mean they will give that money away. They might just spend it on something that they can rationalize does some good.

Buying a diamond ring does stop you from donating money to charity though. Whatever you donated could have been made greater by the amount of the diamond ring. And since diamond rings absolutely don't contribute to solving the "overall problems," as you put it, purchasing such luxuries are almost certainly "evil." The reason this is important to distinguish is because some forms of consumption are a lot more likely to make the world better than other forms. Buying a daily coffee, for instance, may be unnecessary consumption, but it's a close call because it might just make you that much more productive at your job. A diamond ring or a golden toilet seat is not a close call.

I agree that sending money to inefficient or ineffective charities that don't solve the root problems (i.e. funding warlords, contributing to overpopulation) is very different than sending money to efficient charities that are more likely to be solving root problems (providing solid educations to as many people as possible).

And just because we don't know exactly where the morally optimal line is does not mean some answers aren't objectively much closer to it than others. We can at least weed out the clearly wrong answers. If you have a hundred million dollars, for instance, and you buy a fifty million dollar house, you're simply less ethical than someone who buys a one million dollar home and invests the other forty-nine million in what he believes to be strong, innovative companies (everything else being equal).

Interesting how some of those arguing against David are trying to do so by saying (more or less explicitly) that no one can be sure that doing something other than spending money on a luxury item will improve the world, while his arguments needs only for it to be more likely than not, in the estimation of the spender, that he could find some way he could spend the money that would improve the world relative to spending it on the luxury item.

I think most people who are choosing a ferrari over a cadillac (not really good substitutes, so call it a 5 carat flawless D versus a 1.5 carat VS2 H) would guess if asked that they could improve the world by spending the incremental several hundred thousand dollars (the two diamonds I listed) on something else, yet some of them buy the diamond anyway.

It's interesting you choose to add this word.

Once again, we can subject this to the argument of scale. Why choose brass, when steel will work? Why do we need running water at all? What you are saying is that doing anything above your needs is immoral, and now it only comes down to how immoral you are.

And now the zero sum argument. The guy who earned 10 million and chose to toss half of it into the furnace (see HS slot player) is much less moral than regular Joe who can't afford to waste as much money. I guess by that measure, the most moral people on earth are the homeless.

How moral a homeless person is depends on what he would do if he was not homeless.

So if he had a home but was living paycheck to paycheck, and occasionally gives a buck to the Santa Claus in front of his supermarket he is more moral than a billionaire who donates half his money to charity?

Take Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest and most influential people of the past century. He has most certainly spent gobs of money on mansions and such, however he is also among one of the most charitable people ever. In fact, he plans to donate 95% of his wealth to charity instead of passing it on to his kids. When interviewed about his charity, I'm sure he would say something like, "I felt like it was my moral duty to help those less fortunate." But that is just him trying to be humble (we all do that), and perhaps planting the seed in other wealthy folks' heads. In reality, he was under zero moral obligation to donate his hard earned monies to others, rather than keeping in his family... that's what makes it so admirable! If it were wrong not to do it, it would make his generosity less legitimate.

I think the problem with the OP is we are confusing admirable acts with moral obligation. Is it admirable to give your money to charity instead of spending it on your own entertainment? Of course. Is it morally wrong not to. No. What you do with the money you have earned is your business, and while it is super nice if you spend it on others, it is not morally wrong to keep it.

? I do... What is an ACist

So you don't think it's wrong not to save the drowning child when you could easily do so and no one else is around?

Very wealthy people who are very charitable while owning a few luxuries are certainly more moral than rich people who avoid luxuries but don't give.

In fact I don't even have a gripe with wealthy who don't give at all.

My gripe is with those who disengenuously invoke philosophical or political gobbldygook when they decide it OK to light their cigars with hundred dollar bills. If there is a kid in the next town who made the papers because his parents can't afford a very expensive prosthetic device, he is a bad person if he doesn't give them his "lighters". And if he tries to deny it by talking about how it is better to teach people to fish rather than to give them fish I'll call him on it.

I'm curious if it's still (at least) less moral if you had money and under no circumstance would you donate to charity. Say, you are morally convinced that giving to charity under any circumstances is wrong (I'm not sure if there are groups that think this so I won't speculate); but under those circumstances would spending money on $2000 shoes versus $50 shoes be immoral simply in the face of poverty?


also:
this could be argued as a cause of hunger in the developing world. By growing coffee for a global market, you are growing less food, thus driving the price of food in your region up. Also, through specialization, if you have crop failure and are reliant on foreign food sources: hunger. This is all not to mention that it is these crops which really feed corruption; yes, sometimes "war lords," but often legitimate governments simply trying to pay off debts to the World Bank. /rant

Both of these examples suffer logical flaws, I think.

In the first example, our hero is responsible to help the child. And Vael would then attempt to equate the drowning child to every starving kid in Africa (or the US, w/e). The difference between the two scenarios is our hero is the only person who can save the child. Also, the child is drowning most likely due to an accident, not due to a systematic flaw in a system, such as the problem of poverty and overpopulation in Africa. Therefore, he should save the kid from drowning. But there are many more people in line before him responsible to save a starving African baby, beginning with the mother and father who birthed the kid without means to support him, then moving on to the extended family, the corrupt government, etc. Once again, if we are going to pretend there is no difference between the two, then we are all evil for wearing blue jeans instead of burkas, it's just a matter of how evil.


In the second example, David, I know few people who actually light their cigars with hundred dollar bills. Perhaps doing that in itself is unethical, since is against the law. But what you're really getting at is if he chooses to keep his money or spend it on some luxury and not the kid, you think he is evil. Not so. Take the same scenario, but let's say the kid needs a kidney. Is our rich man evil if he doesn't offer up one of his? He doesn't need both.

I don't see any difference systemic flaws play in regards to suffering. Lets say there is a boy drowning in a lake. However, he is drowning because:

1. He was trying to cross a bridge, which was built shoddily. The local government built the bridge shoddily in order to pilfer the treasury.

2. He was never taught to swim. He was never taught to swim because of poor parenting.

3. There are, also, others around who are unwilling to help. Next to the lake, aside from you, are locals (or in any event people who are more closely related to the problem). These people are either unwilling to help, or unable, because they themselves do not know how to swim.

4. Both 1, 2, and 3 are systemic. Every month some child drowns because of a corrupt and ineffectual government, parenting, and social system.

You are a visitor and see this boy drowning, despite knowing all of the above, do you still not help? What if you are wearing $2000 shoes which you would be unable to remove?