The US tax system does provide help to poor childrens' health care through welfare, social security, and medicaid. And it simply is not hyperbolic nonsense to claim our economy runs on the trade of goods and services, the majority of which are not essential to our survival.

Hector, if I wasn't directly addressing your argument it's because I was attempting to focus more on the OP. I think your argument is not really relevant to the OP because nobody here is claiming we should not help others.

The question is whether buying luxuries is wrong. Some here and perhaps you are attempting to claim it is morally wrong because it comes at the expense of helping others, but I am claiming that is not true. Even though you might try to set up specific instances where it is zero sum, the fact is our world isn't. We can help our neighbors kids and buy luxuries.

And how does that help the poor girl in America?

If you really believe that, the how many handbags would I have to buy before my neighbor girl can afford her operation? Ballpark.

I'm going to admit I'm wrong for the most part on the child-healthcare bit. Going to think on things a bit. Peace.

And I'll admit I forgot you were the original poster.... I still think it's an interesting subject, and I enjoyed DS owning this thread for a while with his interesting examples of extreme greed (see alligator shingles). I guess everything is relative though. I can't imagine what a starving kid from Africa must think of the amount of food and energy even the poor practically throw away in the West.

The question could be rephrased from a slightly different perspective: Is spending your time, energy and work to enjoy your own life morally wrong?

Is there any other choice for the sane?

I think I might not be arguing the op anymore. I am arguing the morality of moral callousness (someone help me think of another word), and could probably start another thread, but meh. This thread touched on the subject of moral callousness for a long time so that's what I have been thinking about.

I think the argument for "well, I pay taxes and taxes do good," is shaky at best being as there is no national sales tax. Also I think I am more arguing against acism, which is probably irrelevant. All I am saying in that regard is self interest leaves holes. And moral callousness leaves those holes empty. I also don't see how buying handbags could lower healthcare costs, as chezlaw suggests, and think that is almost irrelevant meaning would it actually become affordable or not.

I'm not especially interested in whether it would be moral to buy a five hundred thousand dollar car, and then to spend five hundred thousand dollars on a charity, although even that seems unjustifiable to me. I think spending money on yourself so far and beyond what could be considered utility seems unjustifiable.

As for I think It would be entirely possible to devise a variable litmus involving the actual utility of the object in question relative to its cost. I.e. obviously a cell phone has utility, but a cell phone encrusted in gold and jewels is probably unjustifiable relative to its cost.

As for give me an example. Why couldn't people just buy what is of most utility to themselves and have a functioning economy? I think this argument falls apart unless you are using the argument that everything could be considered a luxury, which is easy enough to argue against.

How about a 10 to 1 scale of actual utility? Meaning, hey, a purse with pockets, durability, and a socially acceptable amount of style (I can see the argument against wearing burlap sacks) could probably be made for a hundred dollars, no? So then a $1000 dollar purse would then be considered a luxury. Just a starting point for a definition of luxury.

Also I don't see how you can say its not zero sum. I mean, if you spend $5000 dollars on a handbag, then that money is gone, and you can no longer spend it unselfishly. Sure you can spend other money on charity but the money you've allocated for yourself can no longer be reallocated.

The 5000 dollars is not gone. It is simply in someone else's hands now. What is gone is the labor and material that went into making it. And that's what's more important because you can't eat money.

Basically. When millions of people starve and die from easily preventable diseases, is it morally wrong to spend your time, energy and work watching the new Brad Pitt movie?

I say no. But because the answer is no, that has consequences for the level of discourse in the US and other welfare-heavy countries, that somehow think it IS morally imperative....as long as they are Americans, and cant afford diabetes meds.

During my lifetime we have seen the most dramatic improvement for the poor in human history. That's in a large part down to trade rich people buyng from poorer people.

I understand while people have issues with it as the benefits to the poor are a side effect and it seems wrong at a superficial level, but instead of denouncing the one thing making a dramatic difference we can have that and add charity etc as icing.

chezlaw lives in a capitalist country with 20% sales tax and free health care. plus all the other taxes involved.

can I just enjoy my handbag now please?

I suppose we could do something like this. To an extent we already do, though it's not well defined. Pointing out the different way people make these judgments is a good way to see the stratification of classes in our society. A person in the US lower economic class will likely define an acceptable amount of style vs. utility much differently from someone in a higher economic class, and also much differently from someone living in the 3rd world, or someone in his exact place 100 years ago. It's all very relative.

Are you suggesting everyone ought to go with one set scale and definition of luxury? If so, would one need to use 3rd world notion of luxury in order to be considered moral?

It's not immoral because we are independent creatures and not responsible for others.