Is it ethical to spend money for personal entertainment?

Post Reply New Topic

No, Hume was mathematically proven to be better than Kant 4 years ago. The proof was clever, innovative, highly distrusted, but now the profession is coming to accept what happened.

Yes, but that's basically communism applied internationally. Or am I seeing this in a wrong way?


Exactly. But the question at hand is: 'Is it ethical to spend money on entertainment?" I think it's perfectly ethical to spend money on entertainment, precisely because most of it is inexpensive, and thus buying a DVD or a book now and then doesn't impair one's ability to give to charity in any serious way. What I protest to is some people's fanatical insistence that all one's free income should go to charity and none of it to entertainment. For this would, in all fairness, also have to apply (though perhaps not to the same extent) to those receiving charity themselves, as soon as they're just a bit above subsistence level. At worst, this would result in everyone living exactly at subsistence level - not a very desirable situation I think. At best, it would result in a massive redistribution of wealth, with everyone receiving roughly the same amount of wealth. This is too close to communism for my comfort, but you may disagree according to your "moral taste". (I don't mean taste to be derogatory, I think everyone has an innate sense of taste when it comes to morality.)


I don't get you here. In my definition a supererogatory act is an act which is morally good, yet cannot be considered an absolute duty. It is an act, so to say, beyond the call of duty. I'm a bit puzzled as to why some people have difficulties accepting the existence of such acts. To me, it's sort of intuitively obvious that they do exist. Look, Mother Theresa did more morally good acts than I ever will do (probably), but that doesn't mean that I have neglected my duties as a morally good person. We can't all be expected to be saints, I think.



You're right about our principles being more or less grounded in intuition. Pure reason cannot establish that one system of ethics is better than another, just like pure reason cannot decide that Euclidean geometry is in some way superior to Hyperbolic geometry. But once we have our principles, I consider it very much in the true spirit of philosophy to deduce all the duties which may follow from these principles by means of pure reason. Yes, it is intuitively obvious that Pythagoras' theorem is true, but I'd rather see Euclid's beautiful proof than to trust my own, falible, geometric intuitions. By the same token, I think the categorical imperative, once agreed upon, is a beautiful means of deducing morally good actions without having to resort to "women's magazine ethics", i.e., a bunch of "obvious" moral intuitions gift-wrapped as lifestyle advice.

The concept of the apodictic synthetic a priori is incoherent. This is the major premise of The Critique of Pure Reaons. Given that the synthetic a priori is bogus Kant's Critique of Pure Reason comes crashing to the ground.

On other grounds Kant was unsound. He asserted that geometry was true as a syntehtic a priori. In Kant's day there geometry meant geometry as Euclid formulated it. We now have many geometries (non-Euclidean) that are as consistent as Euclid's geometry and are contrary to Euclid.

In addition Kant asserted that physics as Newton formulated it was true as a synthetic a priori. But we now know Newtonian physics is false. It has been falsified empirically.

In short Kant is bogus.

ruveyn

Now we're talking!

While I agree that Kant was rather misguided (or just plain unlucky) in his choice of examples of a priori synthetic knowledge, I don't see how this invalidates the concept itself. (And that's when I don't even consider the issue whether non-Euclidean geometries and Relativity truly refute Kant's conceptions of space and time.) Besides, your assertion of the falsehood of Newtonian physics is very crude at best. It is incomplete in some fundamental respects, but that doesn't make it false.

Your examples only show that most modern philosophy needs science to guide it now and then, as in Comte's assertion (in the 1840s or 50s I believe) that the internal constitution of stars is an example of unattainable knowledge of the natural world - but then astronomical spectrography came along, etc. Still it's quite possible that Comte was right in asserting that knowledge of certain facts about the natural world may be ultimately unattainable.

Newton's laws of gravitation incorrectly predicts the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. This is a matter of empirical fact. Newton's law of gravitation is WRONG.

Furthermore Newtonian momentum is not conserved, relativistic momentum is.

Furthermore space is not flat-Euclidean as Newton supposed but is curved.

Furthermore time is not absolute as Newton supposed. The dilation of time and contraction of distance has been verified empirically.

Lets see you set a record for how many wrong things you can say.

ruveyn

i always figure in cash for strippers in my weekly budget. my second favorite form of entertainment next to video games

Umm.... I think you're seeing it the wrong way somewhat. The problems with communism were that it was totalitarian, coercive, and excessively centralized. If we had a totally voluntary giving effort, I doubt that it would really suffer the problems of communism.


Ok, but I think the real issue is significant spending on entertainment, not insignificant.

Could the OP have been literal when saying this? "There are many ways to entertain yourself without spending any money. " In some sense, not really, because for a lot of people there are going to be transportation costs due to gasoline, very minor purchasing costs. There will be the purchasing of equipment that has less potential as an investment and more as a source of entertainment, and all of that. The real issue is just spending much of one's free income on entertainment because it does become technically true that if literally no money was spent on entertainment, then none would exist.


To me it is intuitively obvious that they don't really exist. Mother Theresa, (assuming her as the standard of goodness) is to be a role model for the rest of us, and we are to live up to her example. If we don't really value her example enough to live up to it, in what sense is it laudable in the first place? Either her actions are laudable and ours by comparison aren't laudable, or they are just different choices. The issue is that if moral goodness is the highest good, then moral goodness cannot be sacrificed for a lesser good.


Well, ok, but the principles are either intuited, socially constructed, or existential leaps of faith, and only the former reason gives us much reason to accept the system in the first place. The other two are just phony reasons. (You could posit a third option, but you already rejected reason, and I doubt that you'll argue empirically)

I don't understand the distinction you make. If it is unethical to walk away, why is that not an obligation to come forward?


So in my last thought experiment, if you were unjustly accused and I could save you from a long prison sentence at a small monetary cost and a little inconvenience, would you think there is no ethical difference between me helping you and me walking away? This thought experiment is another case of the same thing: what is the ethical thing to do when a small cost to myself buys a much larger benefit for someone else?


The problem is that few people ever feel they are filthy rich. They associate and compare themselves with other people of similar wealth and their own wealth seems normal. I tried to find a table of global income distribution, but failed. The best I found are these two graphs:
[/quote]http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/incomegr.gif
http://simun.info/ehlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/income_distribution.jpg
How much does a new pickup truck cost? $50000? I guess most people wouldn't spend more than a year's income on a car, so your yearly income should be $50000 or more. Looking at the second graph, I think that definitely puts you in the top 10% of earners worldwide, perhaps even the top 5%. Talk to people with a globally median income. That looks to be perhaps $4/day. Do you think you'd be filthy rich by their standards? I think you might be.


It doesn't feel like it. But the point of the thought experiments is to demonstrate contradictory intuitions. If you think I would be wrong to walk away from your troubles in the witness thought experiment, can you find a way to justify spending money on things that make little difference to your happiness if you could instead make a large difference to someone else's happiness? The ethical principle relevant to the both choices is the same.


I'm not sure. Guilt is what you feel when you know that you have violated your own norms. Shame is what you feel when others know that you have violated the norms of society. If you feel guilty, the coercion is all your own. If your actions match your principles, you may be made to feel shame, but how would you be made to feel guilt?

By the way, I would really like you to persuade me that you're right. I was thinking of spending a chunk of my savings on myself, but have already decided to give a third of that budget to charity instead. Now I wonder if I can justify any of that spending. Do persuade me. Please?

zer0netgain mentioning a pickup truck made me think of something. The taxes that drivers pay are not enough to pay for all the health and environmental costs of driving a car. Driving a car means you benefit from a subsidy financed by other taxpayers' money. Driving a car for entertainment is unethical by your principles. I don't know whether you ever drive a car just for fun or whether you even have a car. But does this thought change your attitude to cars?

I don't think the argument works. You're just claiming that there are externalities and that government pays for the costs of these externalities, but this is different than directly spending taxpayer money. There is no subsidy at all though for driving a car, just a broken method of externality accounting. That being said, if it is the case that nearly everybody drives a car and nearly everybody suffers the consequences of this, then this solution might still be socially acceptable, even if it does not match the ideal outcome of a pigovian tax.

I could give money and possibly save someone, but the money could be stolen my some greedy psychopath, fleeing from the the aid organisation with millions in his pockets.

I could give money to someone through collector on the streets and make them happy, but who hugs me in return?

I could give money through an aid organisation to someones family so they can mass-produce more kids and scream for more money, while i sit here all alone with zero prospects to start my own family.


Why is it unethical to deny some people money, but not unethical to withhold love to people that are unable to find someone? Basically, if i cant even get a damn hug from someone in return, i rather just buy myself another notebook.

You owe me no legal duty. Hence, if you choose not to intervene, you have done no wrong. That others might try to accuse you of being immoral for not intervening is not relevant. Frankly, I know of no system of "morality" that would compel you to intervene. The only ones I suspect would come close to taking such a stand themselves would not spend the money to help me, so if they "preach" that standard but leave it to you carry it out (while they keep their wealth) they are hypocrites who really don't practice what they preach.



My income compared to others is utterly irrelevant outside of my nation. Homes, cars, clothes, medicine, etc. costs a vast difference from nation to nation. There is a lot of price fixing going on. Canada pays about 50% of what Americans pay for medicines. Mexicans pay about 1/3. Same medicine.

By your rationale, I should feel guilty if I don't give every penny I earn to those in undeveloped nations because keeping it would be hording wealth.

Instead, you should understand WHY America is so wealthy...we promote the development and creation of wealth. Every nation trapped in poverty has economic and political policies that largely punish the development of wealth. Sometimes they are just trapped in a constant cycle of war. Maybe they breed like rabbits and don't have the resources to provide for everyone...resulting in a national crisis.

Why should I feel guilty because other nations can't put aside their messed up priorities in order to build a better society for themselves?



Maybe, maybe not. You're being relativistic. I choose to spend $5 on myself where $5 could provide for a family of 4 in some dirt-poor nation on the other side of the globe. I have no ethical duty to give that $5 to that family. If I have a moral duty, who is imposing it upon me? I can tell you that a lot of "charities" absorb a nice bit of what comes in for themselves. A lot of "aid" never gets where it is going. I feel bad for the people in Haiti, but Haitians breed like roaches and tolerate a government that keeps them in despicable poverty. No wonder they are so messed up. Handing them money is the worst thing I could do...it would just reward choices that got them in the mess they are in.



Utterly erroneous. Guilt is something you feel when you violate norms society has programmed into you. Morality should be based on a universal absolute, not something some globalist decides is effective to control the masses into following an agenda he dreams up. There is "right" and "wrong" in life, but it really isn't what most authorities want to claim it is.



I don't need to. You do what makes you feel good. If you want to put 1/3 of your savings into helping people you feel need it, then do it. You will get a satisfaction from doing it just as you would if you spent that money on yourself. Don't let someone pressure you into making the choice they think you should make. Do what you feel is right for you based on what your heart tells you.

That you want me to persuade you that I am right seems to indicate that want to spend it on yourself but feel a desire to help others instead.

That only makes sense if you get your ethical principles completely from social norms, as and only as expressed in law. I don't.

But I want to be sure I understand you. If I left you to rot in prison when I could have prevented you from being wrongly convicted at a small cost to myself, you would think that is OK, and if you knew what I'd done, you'd shake my hand and tell me no hard feelings, you might have done the same? If you can't honestly say that, you agree that the small cost to me of coming forward doesn't balance the large cost to you of me walking away. Then you have the same dilemma as I have. You deny that. Can you honestly say your feelings would be consistent with that denial if I left you in serious s**t when it would cost me very little to help you?


You keep coming back to compulsion, even though I keep telling you that has nothing to do with what I ask, except to the extent that you feel compelled by your own principles. Is, in your mind, helping others so firmly associated with compulsion that you simply can't let go of this idea?


Doesn't matter, unless one of your principles is that others' hypocrisy excuses you from acting on your principles.


It makes a difference to your disposable income, what's left after you take care of basic needs like food, clothes, housing and transport to work. I am only discussing disposable income. If you live and work in a rich country, the money that buys you a little benefit at locally high prices could buy a much larger benefit at lower prices elsewhere. I am discussing the situation where a small cost to you or me makes a big difference to someone else.


That is what I'm asking. Show that it is wrong. I have not yet seen a good reason.


Same as above. Why do you associate helping with compulsion? I say yet again, the only compulsion I am interested in is the compulsion you or I feel from our own principles.


So give to a charity that offers free contraception to those who want it. That's a very efficient way to reduce future poverty.


Then I ask, if you are willing to tell me, whether the moral absolutes you know ever compel you to help others when it costs you little and helps them a lot?


Of course. That's what this is all about. But when intuitions, what my heart tells me, are inconsistent, a bit of thought is required. Just ignoring a known inconsistency would be irrational and hypocritical.


It was partly a joke, but it only works as a joke because there is some truth in it. I am no saint. I like my luxuries no less than others. But when it looks like there is inconsistency in my principles, my actions or how I try to make them match, I have only a few choices. I can ignore the inconsistency, which is irrational and hypocritical. I can clutch at the first excuse I find for doing what I want to do without examining it too closely, which is irrational and hypocritical. I can say I am just too weak and selfish to act according to my principles. I can decide to change my principles. Or I can decide to change my actions. This discussion is useful for exploring whether there is anything wrong with my principles.

is it ethical to eat? the food you eat could have gone to a starving person

Well, continued eating is a long-term investment in the production of additional wealth which could be used to go to a starving person.

In order to make an argument like that you have to fail to distinguish between investments and unnecessary consumption. Actions taken to maintain one's health are investments, as they promote further well-being. Unnecessary consumption is just things that could be replaced or even discarded without major loss. (And I know that nothing said sounded Kantian, but it was just a utilitarian examination)

That being said: no, the food I eat will not likely go to a starving person. The US government artificially raises food prices by buying up food and destroying it. It is more likely that they will destroy more food if I don't eat than use it to help a starving person.

is it ethical to recieve medical care?