40 replies to this topic

[Shahrukh]

I had this discussion with a fellow KS member another day and I've been thinking since.
Its been pretty confusing. The question is:
Q
Should we limit our luxury to contribute to the general good?

Now, before anyone answers that, read these three points:

• Luxury means things after your needs and wants.
  
• Not limiting our luxury is not necessarily a selfish thing.
  
• Limiting luxury is not equal to no no luxury.

[Bikerman]

Shahrukh, on 04 August 2010 - 10:28 AM, said:

I had this discussion with a fellow KS member another day and I've been thinking since.
Its been pretty confusing. The question is:
Q
Should we limit our luxury to contribute to the general good?

Now, before anyone answers that, read these three points:

• Luxury means things after your needs and wants.
  
• Not limiting our luxury is not necessarily a selfish thing.
  
• Limiting luxury is not equal to no no luxury.

First problem - definitions. That definition of luxury is poor - in fact it is inaccurate.
i) Luxury need not be 'things'
ii) Your 'wants' might themselves be luxury

Start with a dodgy definition and it can only end up in confusion

Edited by Bikerman, 06 August 2010 - 06:14 PM.

[Shahrukh]

Bikerman, on 06 August 2010 - 06:14 PM, said:

First problem - definitions. That definition of luxury is poor - in fact it is inaccurate.
i) Luxury need not be 'things'
ii) Your 'wants' might themselves be luxury

Start with a dodgy definition and it can only end up in confusion

i) I would have written commodities instead of things but many people might not know what a commodity is.
ii) Not in my opinion. A want is not usually related to a specific good or service.
For example, your want maybe to buy a good car. This want can be fulfilled with a Toyota Corolla or a Mercedes Benz. In the later case, you are going for luxury, in the former you are not.

[Bikerman]

Shahrukh, on 06 August 2010 - 10:30 PM, said:

i) I would have written commodities instead of things but many people might not know what a commodity is.
ii) Not in my opinion. A want is not usually related to a specific good or service.
For example, your want maybe to buy a good car. This want can be fulfilled with a Toyota Corolla or a Mercedes Benz. In the later case, you are going for luxury, in the former you are not.

You might want to own a Mercedes Benz. You may want to buy the biggest diamond in the world. People want (as opposed to need) all sorts of things and, as I said, some will be luxuries and others may not be. Show me a child who does not want a playstation or xbox or similar...are those essentials or luxuries? *

*which of course brings up the next objection. How do you define luxury? For me a great luxury is having a long hot bath - ideally with a glass of fine ice-cold Chablis and a good book. That is something I want to do (otherwise it would not be a luxury but a chore) but costs very little. One of my wife's luxuries is breakfast in bed - costs almost nothing except my time...Neither is a commodity or service in the classical sense of the word since neither involves a financial transaction and neither appears on any ledger or profit/loss account.

Edited by Bikerman, 07 August 2010 - 12:36 AM.

[anwiii]

let's get to answering the question. i think most people know what luxuries are. they are different for everyone and normally revolve around those things that are not needed. a good example was the car example. he is not talking about thoughts or wanting things. he is talking about buying things ok? let's not be too technical here when we had the general idea of what the guy was talking about.

so now can we get back to answering the question? it's a really good question...

[Bikerman]

'Fraid I think the 'technicality' is key.
In my case they would determin my answer to be no - I don't think it is reasonable to expect me to give up or even cut down on my luxuries because that could be of no conceivable gain to anyone else. I don't desire goods-type luxuries or expensive services - as I said, my luxuries are rather simple affairs for a rather simple person. The assertion in the question is that by restricting luxury you allow others a better standard of living, or you reduce a problem like global warming, or you have some other positive effect. I suppose my bath uses more water than is strictly necessary, and my wine is quite expensive at about £15 a bottle (but that is only about 2.50 a glass). I don't think my collection of sci-fi would solve any global problems if I reduced it - though it would make my wife happy since there are several thousand books around the place.
So all in all I think the question assumes a particular scenario where the luxury has a significant cost - and since mine don't then .........

Now, if you want a philosophical and more abstract reply, then yes I believe in principle that it would be an ethically good thing to give up or cut down on costly luxury (costly as in cost to another person/people or cost to the environment). In my system of ethics that would be a moral act. But not doing so would not necessarily be unethical/immoral unless the luxury itself was of such a type as to cause unwelcome harm to another or others - and not in some abstract 'averaged' sense, but in a direct observable sense. Anything without that direct harm is amoral in my definition (not ethical nor unethical).

Edited by Bikerman, 07 August 2010 - 01:38 AM.

[Shahrukh]

anwiii, on 07 August 2010 - 01:21 AM, said:

let's get to answering the question. i think most people know what luxuries are. they are different for everyone and normally revolve around those things that are not needed. a good example was the car example. he is not talking about thoughts or wanting things. he is talking about buying things ok? let's not be too technical here when we had the general idea of what the guy was talking about.

so now can we get back to answering the question? it's a really good question...

Thank you, anwii.

Bikerman, on 07 August 2010 - 01:33 AM, said:

'Fraid I think the 'technicality' is key.
In my case they would determin my answer to be no - I don't think it is reasonable to expect me to give up or even cut down on my luxuries because that could be of no conceivable gain to anyone else. I don't desire goods-type luxuries or expensive services - as I said, my luxuries are rather simple affairs for a rather simple person. The assertion in the question is that by restricting luxury you allow others a better standard of living, or you reduce a problem like global warming, or you have some other positive effect. I suppose my bath uses more water than is strictly necessary, and my wine is quite expensive at about £15 a bottle (but that is only about 2.50 a glass). I don't think my collection of sci-fi would solve any global problems if I reduced it - though it would make my wife happy since there are several thousand books around the place.
So all in all I think the question assumes a particular scenario where the luxury has a significant cost - and since mine don't then .........

Now, if you want a philosophical and more abstract reply, then yes I believe in principle that it would be an ethically good thing to give up or cut down on costly luxury (costly as in cost to another person/people or cost to the environment). In my system of ethics that would be a moral act. But not doing so would not necessarily be unethical/immoral unless the luxury itself was of such a type as to cause unwelcome harm to another or others - and not in some abstract 'averaged' sense, but in a direct observable sense. Anything without that direct harm is amoral in my definition (not ethical nor unethical).

So, basically, you mean that if the luxury doesn't cost much then there is no need to restrict it. But if it helps others, then do restrict it.
I had a pretty similar thought in mind.

[anwiii]

i am with bikerman on this. although i think everyone should give for the general good or the greater good, luxeries are only one way we can do this. bikerman in a teacher. he shapes minds for a living. i don't think it's fair to ask someone to give up their luxuries if they don't have that many to offer their own selves.

as far as me, i don't really have any luxuries and basically don't really buy much for myself except for the neccessities to get by without going insane like my laptop which only cost $500 or my used t.v. and vcr. i don't even have cable. i give back in other ways just like bikerman does. this isn't to say that i wont feed a homeless guy or maybe even take someone in to my home. but that really isn't giving up any luxuries.

the people who most likely buy the luxuries are people who make 100k+ a year and can afford them. if i made that much, i would definitely limit my own luxuries to give to the general and greater good along with what i already offer. i mean, if it was between buying that 1/2 million dollar home or buying that 400k home and giving back, i would definitely buy the latter to limit my own lifestyle for someone who needs the help more than i do! what would i be giving up that costs 100k? a tennis court in my back yard? a jaccuzi and a bigger pool? 2 extra bedroom and an extra full bathroom? blah!

luxuries are also dependant on lifestyle. i mean, for someone who makes 100k+ a year, a luxury might be buying a cabin on a lake for a summer vacation, or a boat, or expensive decorations to fill that expensive home. to others, like a homeless man, it might be a #2 combo from mcdonalds that costs $5. for me, a luxury right now would be something like getting someone once a week to clean my apartment or even just buying the fireworks i wanted to buy on the fourth of july, or just going out once a week to place that can serve up my favorite mexican food.

but i don't buy luxuries for myself. maybe once in a blue moon. i grew up upper middle class and chose this lifestyle. somewhat poor financially. i also hate handouts.... especially from my family, but i have learned i can't stop my mom from giving once in a while so i just accept that.

[Harlot]

Firstly, I disagree with the definition all together. If you say that luxury comes after needs & wants, there would be no such thing as luxury. If you want fifty billion dollars, under your definition, that would not be a luxury. I will copy the definition from Princeton University's online dictionary in order to start this reply off as unbias.

Luxury: something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity

So, by my definition a luxury, and I am speaking from a materialistic stand point, is anything that is not necessary for you to have in order to live. The only thing that you really need to live is food, water, and basic shelter. Everything else in life, believe it or not, is a luxury. Everything else that we have is based on our desire to be comfortable rather than our need to survive. I am the first person to support a limitation on luxury. My position is that whenever your luxury effect someone else basic needs, than your luxury need to be limited. My position applies on an international scale, meaning that if the people in one country have luxury that effects the basic needs of the people in another country, than that luxury ought to be limited. However, I will speak from a more understandable and apolitical perceptive in order to keep from unintentionally derailing the conversation. If you are a parent, you have the right to go out for entertainment, buy alcohol, and blow your money on women as long as the kids are feed, the bills are paid, and any other cost that effect the family are covered (toilet tissue, soap, etc). If the kids are not being feed and the bills are not paid, then your luxury need to be limited or done away with all together.

Luxury should be the result of excess time and resources. If there are not excess time and resources, than there is no luxury (or ought not to be). You would have to be a sociopath to go out and buy an expensive new sports car despite having nothing in the house for your children to eat, and having a foreclosure notice on the door. I tend to believe that the same should apply on the international level in regards to taking exploiting resources from other countries (even though we can survive without them).

Nevertheless, I always turn to the serenity prayer, which goes, "God give me the serenity to accept the things that I can not change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference". We have to accept that fact that people tend to care about their own pocketbook and well being rather than the well being of others. It applies to everyone, so as much as I usually throw the blame on the rich, I can't do that and still maintain logic. Even some of the poorest people on earth have the goal of getting all they can get. People are sociopaths when it come to money. For example, Bayers, the company that make the drug aspirin, knowingly sold an HIV infected drug to hemophiliacs patients in Asia & South America after it was rejected by the U.S. FDA for that very reason. Bayers not wanting to lose money, dumps it on the poor Asians and Hispanics, which resulted in many deaths by HIV/AIDS virus.

Here is the source:
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain555154.shtml

People will do the most immoral and unethical things for the sake of money. A person once told me that they think I would sell them out for $100,000. That let me know a lot about them. It means that they would sell me out for $100,000 and assume that I think the same way that they do or cherish the same things. Perhaps I could be misinterpreting this person because they didn't tell me directly, but they answer a series of questions about online friends and then the online friends could view the answers (This was a RL friend though, who I happen to talk to online too). They could have been making a rational determination based on society's love for money and the actions that they have taken in the past out of their love for money. Anyway, You can also look at the guy who is running for President of Haiti, Wyclef Jean. I don't know a lot about his character or personality, but he has been accused of embezzling $400,000 which had suppose to go to Haiti's relief efforts.

The fact is that it is likely that greed will always exist and effect the lives of society. We simply have to have the wisdom to know if it is something that can or can not be changed in our lifetime. I am currently approaching the conclusion that it is a problem that we will have to live with.

[Shahrukh]

Harlot, on 07 August 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

The only thing that you really need to live is food, water, and basic shelter.

That is not true, in my opinion.
In today's world, especially in business and offices, cell-phones, laptops, cars, air travel, etc. are all necessitates.
I can't even reach my university if I didn't have a car (public transport isn't that good here).
But whether I use a Corolla or a Mercedes makes a difference (as I gave the example above).
Also, I need a cell-phone. So does my father. Whether we buy a Nokia N97 or a Nokia 5230 makes a difference. They are almost similar in terms of functionality but there is a huge price difference. So, if we buy a Nokia 5230 instead of a Nokia N97, we are limiting our luxury and still fulfilling our need.

Harlot, on 07 August 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

The fact is that it is likely that greed will always exist and effect the lives of society. We simply have to have the wisdom to know if it is something that can or can not be changed in our lifetime. I am currently approaching the conclusion that it is a problem that we will have to live with.

That is true. Somethings can't be changed in the everyone.
But that is not what matters. The thing that matters is what we do to bring about the change.
Here is a fairy tale:
Once there was a huge fire in a village. The people abandoned the place and went for safety.
A sparrow was seen bringing drops of water to extinguish the fire.
A guy asked it what it was doing, the fire won't be affected by those drops.
The sparrow said that at least it can say it tried.

And even if you can't change those you don't have control over, you can change one person: yourself.

I really liked what anwii said. I wish more people think that way.

Edited by Shahrukh, 07 August 2010 - 06:11 PM.