While reading "Into the Wild," I found Chris's attitude toward money interesting. Chris "believed that wealth was shameful, corrupting, inherently evil" (115), and was embarrassed by his parents displays of it. The idea that spending money is somehow morally wrong has been around for quite a while. A dislike of the display and possession of wealth is a central tenet of communist philosophy, and even president Obama hinted at that idea when he decried "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies." It does seem wrong, to some extent, that Americans to possess so much wealth and so many possessions while others in the world lack even the basics of life. So, is wealth really immoral?
I believe the argument that wealth and money itself is inherently immoral is extremely weak. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for instance, controls almost 34 billion dollars, but no one can argue that that wealth or the foundation is morally questionable. Rather, the strength of the case against the wealth of a person or entity depends on how it is used; the money may not be wrong, but using it for frivolous purposes may be. The most morally questionable use of wealth is also the most common use, at least at an individual level; to purchase material goods, i.e. consumption. Because the act of purchasing an iPod, for instance, has no direct benefits except the satisfaction of the buyer, and is not necessary for a comfortable existence, it is most vulnerable to questions about morality, at least compared to other uses for money. And so we finally arrive at the subject of the title of this post. Is the use of money to purchase material and luxury goods, also known as consumption, an inherently immoral act? (this post will be finished tomorrow, i'm still working on answering the question. in the mean time, if anyone wants to give an answer, i would appreciate the feedback.)
Wowzas. I think that the question that you pose is really interesting and quite honestly hard to answer, i dont know if i have this right but ill give it a shot. I do not think that consumption is an inherently immoral act, because i dont think that one would be considered an awful human being simply for indulging in luxaries. Sure that person could considered be less considerate or even selfish. But because of the way American society is set up with a competative capitalist economy, class differences and consumption is inevitable and even covetted amongst Americans. We all strive to be less like communists and we enjoy the seperation of classes so long as we are in a higher class. We all strive to be in a higher class therefore i do not believe Americans would consider consumption immoral. I think they would want to be apart of that high class that could afford luxuries and other comforts. oh and also i really like the title of your blog
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of this post is correct, but there is one small inconsistency that I believe needs to be addressed in order to truly understand the justification for something like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in this "Friedman Type" capitalist experiment the world has seemingly become. In a world in which the utterly poor are viciously pushed through the gutter, an institution such as the Gates foundation may seem soothing, but not at all does it address, or ameliorate the problems having to do with greedy capitalism, or misunderstandings of how exactly economics works. I am not saying that the institution itself and its claims are wrong, but I think that whether or not it is valid in the first place to allow Bill Gates to decide so much while at least a dozen people per square mile of Chicago go without any food in a given day. I would try to avoid blanket statements such as that no one can morally question the income of such a wonderful institution, as, in all cases of thorough analysis, opposing economic ideals do not exclude cases of compassion, they just stop the need for the institutions themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jasmine: just because most Americans believe consumption is moral, does that make it moral? Is morality decided by the majority, or is there an objective measure?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jon: I am honestly not totally sure what you are trying to say. You seem to be implying that because there are poor people, charities who try to address those problems are wrong or flawed in some way. I do believe that charity foundations help address the problems in the world. And you mentioned avoiding blanket statements; Attributing the problem of poverty to "greedy capitalists," as well as stating they misunderstand economics, seems to me a fairly broad generalization.