Is it ethical to spend money for personal entertainment?

Post Reply New Topic

I spend lots of money on personal entertainment, though not politically correct I (as well as many people, when they admit it) don't REALLY care about people in third-world countries. I would prefer it that that they didn't have to live the lives they do, but I prefer to spend my money on things like books than giving it to other people.

I hope it is not an expensive bullet you would be using for that purpose. Wouldn't want you to go overboard in your saintly enthusiasm.


An honest man. So what proportion of your disposable income do you give away to causes or people you judge worthy?


Can you imagine, for the sake of the thought experiment, that you are a champion swimmer?


Hard choice, is it?


I find it hard to disapprove of spending on books But have a look at this article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13498-give-away-your-money-and-be-happy.html. Might give you ideas for other ways to have fun.

Really? Spending money on entertainment ethical or not? First of all to have ethics one must be able to distinguish and KNOW what is right and what is wrong. And, really, these are two man made concepts If you really believe in right and wrong you are basically above all things deluding yourself. All there is is cause and effect. Do what you think/feel is best for you and others around you in the world. Causes have both positive and negative effects depending on the perspective and point of view taken. Heck, there are even positives in stealing something from someone. They are there. it's just when something like that happens there are more negatives and they are stronger in that instances. But make no mistake when you stop to analyze and break everything down...they are there. Is it ethical to steal? Maybe/maybe not....but is it also ethical to teach greed and selfishness which has a direct link to this type of behaviour that is preached in a materialistic and consumable society. Maybe/maybe not. I guarantee no one can give a definitive answer to either or. If you THINK you can, well, you are only deluding yourself and I'm not buying it. Because, for me that means that you know all that there is to know and can dictate values to someone else and judge them.

The only thing accomplished by arguing ethics is a banter of positives and negatives and why one is better than the other when really it's all subjective anyhow depending ones point of view.

Take care of your own happiness and when you feel that you are happy and you can share you happiness and give some of that away, then by all means do it. But, approaching it by worrying about because you are happy is basically saying is it ethical to make myself happy? Is your happiness more important than someone elses? It's quite unfortunate that most people take the position that life is all about suffering and unworthiness, yada yada yada and yet these very same people will reproduce and subject innocent lives to all of this. You know how mental that sounds?

Edit:

And look what I did there! I allowed you the belief that you need those external items or forms of entertainment to "make you happy" even though happiness comes within and that is how we are born. We're taught to suffer and be miserable. Am I not merciful?

To be frank, if such a situation did come up, the fact that it would cost me $500 would likely not cross mind until after the event.

In any case, my reaction would likely be dependent on how the thought "He's drowning!" crossed my mind. Most likely, if I were witnessing it and nearby saving the person would be my reaction. If there would be any reason not to save him, it would either be 'I'd get wet' or 'too lazy' rather than 'well, this I-pod does cost $500...' (although that assumes I stop to think about my next action, in which case the kid would likely die anyways)

So the question really becomes: would you act spontaneously (in which case I would save the kid), or would you stop to think about what you are seeing (in which case, the odds of me jumping in decrease, and the kid would likely die even if I decided to jump in)

Don't worry, I know what kind of bullets are good for shooting children. I've had practice. (Ok, I am seriously joking, put your cellphone to call the cops away)


100% Who are you to say I am unworthy?

Look, I know what you are saying, and honestly I already addressed this issue earlier. And yeah, part of the issue is a problem getting regular income at this point in time.

Usually, when saving a kid, you remove said clothes that would wear you down, as well as the iPod (and hey, i doubt it would take anyone more than 30 seconds to remove said clothing). Emergency calls. ^.-

Well, the entire idea of saving the kid is a ridiculous thought experiment. A good portion of us would likely drown because we don't have lifeguard training. What would happen is this kid is likely to splash around trying to save his own life at our expense and through this kill us due to reckless efforts.

One of only a few. Notably those who said it was ethical to spend their money any way they like have not offered any arguments beyond their say-so. They have also ignored the thought experiment or quibbled about the details. Probably it's clear enough where this was going. If you feel you it would be wrong to watch the kid drown to save your $500, how can you justify spending the same $500 if you could use the money instead to save another kid not right in front of you? I took the thought experiment from a report on a study of moral intuitions. It shows that intuition is not consistent. Most people think it would be wrong to watch the kid drown, but see nothing at all wrong with spending money on luxuries instead of on saving lives.


And you are aware enough to know it and honest enough to admit it. The people who say it's ethical to spend money any legal way they like but can't offer an argument lack at least one of those.


If you want to be consistent, yes.


That's why I only started giving money to worthy causes once I had a steady income. And I am not consistent either. I have spent perhaps a fifth of my disposable income, maybe even less. My excuse has been that if everyone else did proportionally even half as much and took care where the money goes, we could solve most problems that can be solved with money. In that sense I pull more than my own weight. But lately I've been wondering whether that is a good enough excuse, and then this thread came along. And the best I have seen to justify less than a vow of poverty is Sand's "man does not live by bread alone" argument. So we should ask for an exercise in ethical economics. How many lives is art and entertainment worth? I know that sounds like loading the question, but that is the trade we are talking about, and I don't know of a more neutral way to present it.

And knowing all that, I'm still too selfish to take a vow of poverty myself, I'll only increase the proportion I give.

I don't understand this. Are you saying it's ethical and compatible with Biblical principles to spend money on luxuries for yourself if you don't love the money?


No one said anything at all about forcing. The question is what you give voluntarily, following your ethical principles.


If true, what does it matter? Is other people's hypocrisy a valid excuse for matching only the lowest level of charity you can find?


Of course not. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett can't do it on their own. The question is not whether an individual can do everything.


Helping others for the sake of it or the promise of reward in the afterlife don't motivate you? Do you think I should stop? I only remember one occasion when I got a bit of a warm glow from a donation (at a monetary cost to me of about $3000), and I don't believe in the afterlife. Am I just a dumb sucker?


There are charities that give poor people the means to support themselves, fostering an enterprise culture, not a dependency culture. I, the leftie, am for it, because I think it's more efficient in the long term.


You started by looking at what the Bible teaches. Does it have no adequate answer?

From an economic perspective, the activity of destroying an iPad is likely neutral.

If I have paid for an asset or a service, converting my labour into money and exchanging that money for an asset, then I have contributed to the earnings of the retailer, the distributor, the manufacturer and the inventor. My activity is beneficial to me, and to those others in the production/distribution chain.

Now, it is unethical to steal an ipad, because I have gained an asset without first putting in any production to acquire the value.

Further, if I create waste from my activity (such as putting an electronic device in a blender) then the question becomes, "Have I created greater economic harm than the benefit that I have created?" Given the cost to the public sector of waste disposal/retention, there is some argument that recreation that creates waste is an economic drain unless it has a cost contribution to offset, but these are pretty marginal.

As for the issue of those who are struggling to survive, this is a public policy question. Who bears the responsibility for providing for those who cannot provide for themselves? There are arguments for and against the public sector, private charity and personal acts, but I don't think that they impede on an ethical analysis of a consumer's pursuit of an economic good.

No. What I'm staying is that it's not having money that is evil, but the LUST for it. People who LUST for wealth horde it. They have enough for anything they desire and still want more.

God knows that man does things for self-gratification. If you give to those in need, you get a personal gratification out of it (if you do it for the right reasons). So, whether you buy a new iPad or give that money to a worthy charity, you get something out of the transaction.



The answer is WHY do you not help others?

First, I do give, but I am very picky about who I give to. I know just handing out money isn't really helping anyone. If you can teach a man to take care of himself, you are doing more for him than just giving him the means to get by for another week.

Second, I know that by giving myself things I desire, that spending is helping others who are doing something to support themselves and others.

There are also matters in which you could harm others. If I loved money to the point that I was dishonest in my dealings with others to take without compensation, then that's just as bad.

Giving has to be voluntary, not compulsory.

i think it is.
if i spend money on my personal entertainment, then i am likely to be in a better mood than if i did not.
being in a better mood would make it more likely that i would donate some money to a beggar.

Umm..... no? I don't know what you mean by an "economic perspective".

1) Destroying an iPad decreases wealth.
2) Through this reduction in wealth, the destruction of the iPad decreases the economic possibilities of an individual for maximizing utility.
3) Reduction in possibilities for maximizing utility is economic loss.


Umm.... ok? But what were you planning on doing if you didn't buy that? Keep it under your mattress? Very few people do that, so even if you weren't buying an iPad, you would likely buy something else, or even save the money. Both of which are actions that are on the aggregate good for the economy. So, the specific choice of buying an iPad likely is meaningless, and saying that destruction (taken by itself) is neutral, is essentially grossly committing the broken window fallacy.


If you are talking about recreational destruction, such "will it blend" on youtube, then this is actually a somewhat different matter than just destroying it. You have just found a different use for the iPad, and a different use is in some sense relatively neutral, so if that's all you mean, then you are probably correct.

Waste disposal costs are likely negligible.


If the consumer is engaged in a trade-off between charity and iPads, then the morality/responsibility of charity is involved in the ethical analysis of buying an iPad.

I just wanted to chime in that I did have a bit of lifeguard training a million years ago in the Boy Scouts, and the very first thing they teach you is to take off your clothes before jumping in the water after someone... Now I know that this is a thought experiment and quibbling over the details is fairly irrelevant (you can't even push an imaginary pimp in front of a nonexistent bus around here), but I happen to have specialized knowledge about this hypothetical situation. It's hard to analyze this kind of situation abstractly, an emergency event might bring a different response than a purely abstract "how much money is a life worth?" question, where my answer would be "it depends on the life". I wouldn't hesitate to lose $500 to save an innocent child for example, but might be reluctant to save a drunken fratboy who's situation is of his own making, but then again I have a special disdain of fratboys.

Drowning people, (even hypothetical ones) should carry the proper identification documents, properly waterproofed, to ensure possible rescuers they qualify to be saved.

No need for such fancy gimmicks, frat boys are easily identified by their backwards caps, pukka shell necklaces and A&F gear with the popped collars, not to mention the keg cups permanently attached to one hand or the other. Besides, if I inadvertently fished one out of the drink, I can always throw it back, problem solved.