Comments on The Atheist Missionary: The immorality of conspicuous consumption

Hi TAM Thanks for having me, and thanks for your ...

2011-01-13T23:27:57.539-05:00

Hi TAM

Thanks for having me, and thanks for your reply.

As a result of the recent exchanges at Randal's blog, I am planning to read one or both of the Singer books that were mentioned. I hope you'll stick around there. Randal and the theists who post there are people you can reason with, so it makes for some interesting discussions at times.

Jerry

Jerry, I forgot to thank-you for dropping by. Bes...

2011-01-13T11:04:58.994-05:00

Jerry, I forgot to thank-you for dropping by. Best, TAM.

Jerry, I will preface my comments by readily conce...

2011-01-13T11:04:22.231-05:00

Jerry, I will preface my comments by readily conceding that any judgment of immorality requires a starting point. Obviously, I don't base my morality on a divine command but I am also not a moral relativist. I believe that rape, murder and the wanton waste of resources are wrong regardless of who is making the determination. I get my sense of what is right and wrong from my evolved and learned sensibilities. I readily concede that there is a strong Christian etic in what I have learned and I was heavily indoctrinated with Christianity as a child.

Now, with that preface out of the way, I agree with your first point. In fact, I lean towards a libertarian outlook and agree with the simultaneous views you have stated. I personally believe that it is immoral to own a Maserati while millions die around the world from hunger. That being said, I recently drove one and respect the owner's right to have purchased it. Singer urges us to drill this analysis down to unnecessary purchases such as bottled water. I find this reasoning compelling.

As to your second point, again I think you are dead on. I play golf and occasionally spend more than a hundred dollars on a single round. This is unconscionable when compared to what that money could do for an impoverished family living in the third world. So, do I stop playing golf? No, but I am more conscious of the fact that ratcheting my lifestyle down just a notch can allow me to be more generous with charities than I have been in the past.

Also, regarding golf, George Carlin in one his mon...

2011-01-12T19:34:32.907-05:00

Also, regarding golf, George Carlin in one his monologues says his plan for giving the homeless a place to live is to tear down the golf courses, and goes into a rant that includes something like "shame on you for playing this… (replace … with a Carlin-style list) elitist game." I don't agree with him, but I think your inclusion of bottled water and cigarettes (among others) is coming from the same sort of position, i.e. I don't do it so you shouldn't. Any thoughts on that?

Hi Atheist Missionary Found you through Rauser...

2011-01-12T19:23:40.879-05:00

Hi Atheist Missionary

Found you through Rauser's Blog. You wrote: "I believe that most applied ethicists (such as Peter Singer) would agree this view. However, libertarians such as Jan Narveson would likely argue that they have every right to spend what they earn on what they wish."

These two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It all depends on whether your position is that one should donate their excess money to worthy causes for moral reasons or whether one's excess money should be taken for distribution to appropriate worthy causes.

It's possible to simultaneously hold the views that 1) a person should be legally free to spend money they've earned wherever they want; and 2) a good person will donate a significant portion of it to worthy causes.

I'm curious what your position is on this.

Tim said: "it's certainly no more ...

2009-06-03T22:21:29.993-04:00

Tim said: "it's certainly no more wasteful to buy bottled water than it is to buy a soda". I can't disagree with that.

Given the absolutely horrible taste of most tap wa...

2009-06-03T13:37:13.619-04:00

Given the absolutely horrible taste of most tap water, bottled water isn't entirely wasteful. Granted, it would be smarter to get a simple filter for the tap, but if you're out and about and have a choice between unfiltered tap and bottled water, it's certainly no more wasteful to buy bottled water than it is to buy a soda. Considering that most unfiltered tap water also has a higher amount of chemicals, I'd say it's even sensible to either filter or drink filtered water.

While this set of morals is something I can agree ...

2009-06-03T12:19:24.050-04:00

While this set of morals is something I can agree with, I would also point out that Art is worth more than the sum of its parts, and berating others for paying a large sum for a painting is absurd. This includes much of fashion. When you contribute money to designers and artists, you are contributing to culture and the expansion of exploration of the human condition.

Sneakers or drivers, wherein lies morality? Is it...

2009-05-04T16:45:00.000-04:00

Sneakers or drivers, wherein lies morality? Is it in utility or cost efficiency? It seems completely arbitrary. When compared to suffering how can one be moral and not the other? By what logic can a sneaker be an immoral purchase, but a driver is reasonable? Isn't it all subjective?

The life of an impoverished child or a soldier, which is worth more? Which should be the real priority? I don't know.

Buying a Hummer or an Escalade or any big car to t...

2009-05-04T15:01:00.000-04:00

Buying a Hummer or an Escalade or any big car to transport one 180 Lbs human being, that's immoral.

Mrs Obama can wear anything she wants at any cost ...

2009-05-04T10:52:00.000-04:00

Mrs Obama can wear anything she wants at any cost if that is what they can afford. It is no ones business of the cost of wardrobe. How many US soldiers died last week? Come on lets get our priorities in order.

Another Fool, I don't pretend to be perfect...

2009-05-04T09:16:00.000-04:00

Another Fool, I don't pretend to be perfect. I draw the line long before asceticism (attested to by the Callaway driver referred to in my post). However, I am trying to eumlate Peter Singer's view in The Life You Can Save. Simply put - I am trying not to waste money and I am trying to ensure that a decent percentage of my income is devoted to worthy causes that improve the lot of the world's suffering.

In Michelle Obama's defense, she is already receiv...

2009-05-04T08:01:00.000-04:00

In Michelle Obama's defense, she is already receiving heat for her off-the-rack dresses and use of domestic designers. Seriously, can you even remember another first lady who's worn sneakers? I'm betting most other U.S. first ladies wear much more expensive shoes that no one even bothers to comment about.
I must admit that if she wanted to make a statement, she should have worn sneakers made domestically. And $500!

Where do you draw the line? By this logic, in a w...

2009-05-04T02:32:00.000-04:00

Where do you draw the line? By this logic, in a world where anyone dies from lack of money, any non-essential spending is immoral. Is this just a problem with capitalism in general?

Bogus, my point is simply that all of the l...

2009-05-03T22:20:00.000-04:00

Bogus, my point is simply that all of the listed items are (in my opinion) akin to pissing your money into the bay.

I wouldn't support a house of worship. I'd rather buy $540 sneakers - at least they exist.

If this was a Republican First Lady, the media wou...

2009-05-03T19:48:00.000-04:00

If this was a Republican First Lady, the media would be on this story like rabid animals. But Obama will get a free pass.

So, you group supporting a house of worship with c...

2009-05-03T16:08:00.000-04:00

So, you group supporting a house of worship with cigarettes, prada purses, and pesticides? I fail to see your logic.

Just how would you support a house of wroship? Or is that the hidden message of your page?

Perhaps you might want to rethink?

Spending large amount of money does not waste the ...

2009-05-03T15:52:00.000-04:00

Spending large amount of money does not waste the money. The money was given to someone for their products and labor. They, in turn spend that money on other things. While I think that spending $500 on a pair of sneakers is silly, the manufacturer of that sneaker was able to pay his workers with that $500.
Would you feel better is the sneakers in question were made by poor people? Then that money would be used to pay the poor people for their work.
Wealth is not based entirely on the costs of materials and labor. Your understanding of basic economics seems very weak.
People who have money should spend it or invest it in something productive (like stocks and bonds). That way the workers who create the goods can feed their families, and the businesses that employ these people can continue to operate.
What would you have her do with her money? Hide it? That benefits no one.
Give it away? Alms do some short term benefit, but helping to create and sustain jobs is a long term benefit that helps to pay for itself.