Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is it ethical to spend money for personal entertainment?

Page 2 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Apr 2010, 8:32 pm

First things first:

Gratuitous Nazi reference, I call Godwin!

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to point out that smashing an expensive electronic device may be an inefficient way to have fun, it's hardly an unethical one. Buying the iPad keeps a lot of people working in many different fields from design to programing to manufacturing, they don't care what happens to the product once it's paid for. Ever watch fireworks on a holiday? They ain't cheap either, yet their whole purpose is to provide entertainment through their destruction. I could say the same thing about the cigars I smoke, I pay a premium for a handmade product, only to light it on fire...


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Last edited by Dox47 on 14 Apr 2010, 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Apr 2010, 9:01 pm

If you're concerned about wasted money in immense quantities read http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04132010.html .There is plenty of money there now thrown into the pot to promote brutality and destruction for no good purpose whatsoever except to enrich people who already have more money than they can spend. Keeping away from candy bars is ludicrous.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Apr 2010, 10:06 pm

I have ethical issues with wasted money at times. I have that same feeling, that because each dollar can help someone else immensely, I must be wrong to spend that money.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Apr 2010, 4:07 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I have ethical issues with wasted money at times. I have that same feeling, that because each dollar can help someone else immensely, I must be wrong to spend that money.


You means you feel you should spend the money differently. So why don't you?

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Apr 2010, 10:58 am

ruveyn wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I have ethical issues with wasted money at times. I have that same feeling, that because each dollar can help someone else immensely, I must be wrong to spend that money.


You means you feel you should spend the money differently. So why don't you?

ruveyn

Because I am inconsistent, and on some level have some cynicism to my own values. Inconsistency in living up to one's values is a common thing, being cynical is less common but also probably exists. I also don't tend to have a steady income at this point in time, so while the ideal way of giving is to give out of earnings(so that way one can avoid any ethical issue with saved money), I would have to tend to give out of stored cash.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

14 Apr 2010, 11:18 am

It is a complex issue.

I look at what the Bible teaches....


The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

It does not say that money is the root of all evil, but the LOVE of it.

People like to say Jesus endorsed socialism. That is utterly false.

Pragmatically, I see not one example in the human experience that forcing every man to live off minimal sustenance has overall improved the quality of life for everyone.

Heck, those who would preach "share with others" the most are not doing so themselves.

Yes, you should have a generous heart and realizing that by not spending endlessly for yourself, you would have the means to help more around you, but nobody can help everyone.

Enjoying the fruit of my labor is the only incentive I really have to bother laboring. Frankly, you can't hand someone prosperity and comfort...so other than helping the rare deserving soul, why bother making it a top priority?



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

14 Apr 2010, 11:41 am

Have you never heard the term "starving artist"? If you really feel this is an ethical problem, there is a very easy fix. Spend the money you allocated for entertainment by paying to be entertained by somebody who needs the money. Put money into the open guitar case of that sidewalk street musician. Give money to all the street performers you see. A lot of them are good. Go on Etsy or Cafepress to buy the artistic crafts of various people. Buy a ticket to a play put on by a local theater group.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Apr 2010, 12:18 pm

Janissy wrote:
Have you never heard the term "starving artist"? If you really feel this is an ethical problem, there is a very easy fix. Spend the money you allocated for entertainment by paying to be entertained by somebody who needs the money. Put money into the open guitar case of that sidewalk street musician. Give money to all the street performers you see. A lot of them are good. Go on Etsy or Cafepress to buy the artistic crafts of various people. Buy a ticket to a play put on by a local theater group.


What if artist X needs the money but is a sh***y artist? Shouldn't merit enter into the matter?

ruveyn



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

14 Apr 2010, 12:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:
It is ethical to spend one's own money as one sees fit to spend it.

Jacoby wrote:
It's my money, I can do what I want with it.

That is the intuitively obvious answer. Here's a thought experiment for you two. You are walking along a river. You see a drowning child, just going under the surface. If you jump in right now you can save the kid. You will ruin your new suit and destroy your new iPod, because you don't have time to take off either. Saving the kid will cost you $500. You are on holiday in a poor country, the parents will not be able to pay you back. What will you do?



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

14 Apr 2010, 1:09 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Have you never heard the term "starving artist"? If you really feel this is an ethical problem, there is a very easy fix. Spend the money you allocated for entertainment by paying to be entertained by somebody who needs the money. Put money into the open guitar case of that sidewalk street musician. Give money to all the street performers you see. A lot of them are good. Go on Etsy or Cafepress to buy the artistic crafts of various people. Buy a ticket to a play put on by a local theater group.


What if artist X needs the money but is a sh***y artist? Shouldn't merit enter into the matter?

ruveyn


I've been giving money to street performers for as long as I've had sufficent money (sometime in the 80's). My rationalization for the past 25 years has been:

1)if they're good, I'm paying to be entertained

2)if they're terrible I'm motivating them to keep practicing because if they keep doing it, they will eventually get better and then have ultimately earned the money I gave them



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Apr 2010, 1:14 pm

Gromit wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
It is ethical to spend one's own money as one sees fit to spend it.

Jacoby wrote:
It's my money, I can do what I want with it.

That is the intuitively obvious answer. Here's a thought experiment for you two. You are walking along a river. You see a drowning child, just going under the surface. If you jump in right now you can save the kid. You will ruin your new suit and destroy your new iPod, because you don't have time to take off either. Saving the kid will cost you $500. You are on holiday in a poor country, the parents will not be able to pay you back. What will you do?

Pull out my gun and shoot the kid so that way he has a much less painful death.

Yeah, I can't think of a meaningful way to maintain altruism and uphold the wastefulness of our entertainment expenses.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Apr 2010, 1:45 pm

Gromit wrote:
That is the intuitively obvious answer. Here's a thought experiment for you two. You are walking along a river. You see a drowning child, just going under the surface. If you jump in right now you can save the kid. You will ruin your new suit and destroy your new iPod, because you don't have time to take off either. Saving the kid will cost you $500. You are on holiday in a poor country, the parents will not be able to pay you back. What will you do?


I'm thinking. I'm thinking.

ruveyn



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

14 Apr 2010, 2:18 pm

Gromit wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
It is ethical to spend one's own money as one sees fit to spend it.

Jacoby wrote:
It's my money, I can do what I want with it.

That is the intuitively obvious answer. Here's a thought experiment for you two. You are walking along a river. You see a drowning child, just going under the surface. If you jump in right now you can save the kid. You will ruin your new suit and destroy your new iPod, because you don't have time to take off either. Saving the kid will cost you $500. You are on holiday in a poor country, the parents will not be able to pay you back. What will you do?


I can't swim tho :cry:



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

14 Apr 2010, 2:48 pm

Ethics and morals are delusions which have been around for a while due to their usefulness. A brief history.

Ape kills ape for food.

Ape gets killed by other ape for taking another apes food.

Smart ape sees this and plays nice with all apes. Makes personal sacrifices to gain longer life.

Stays this way for so long that it's expected from us that we play nice.

Laws are made to enforce these "morals."

As the environment changes, so do the morals. Those who don't comprehend that morals can be wrong are traditionalists, and those who welcome a better life are called modernists.

More laws are made to rewrite old ones.

Many wars are fought to enforce the "right morals." Many people die in a poorly executed attempt to make a better world.

More laws.

Someone realizes that people are crazy and is put in a mental institution.

More wars, only they are civil this time, because it's against traditionalists and modernists.

Morals burn and traitors get worshiped.

Something happens and the world needs to move on, but the traditionalists are at it again.

More wars.

At this point we are now civilized.

More wars.

This goes on forever. Then some people are called crazy for pointing this out, and are given an award 200 years after they are dead. Many people get very famous for pointing out that people are stupid in increasingly complex and interesting ways.

http://thefutureofourworld.ytmnd.com/ <---this happens

life goes on.

I say buying entertainment is not unethical. Although, if given a choice between an ipod and saving a kids life, I would save the kids life and give them the ipod (apple sucks.)


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

15 Apr 2010, 8:08 am

ruveyn wrote:
Gromit wrote:
That is the intuitively obvious answer. Here's a thought experiment for you two. You are walking along a river. You see a drowning child, just going under the surface. If you jump in right now you can save the kid. You will ruin your new suit and destroy your new iPod, because you don't have time to take off either. Saving the kid will cost you $500. You are on holiday in a poor country, the parents will not be able to pay you back. What will you do?


I'm thinking. I'm thinking.

ruveyn


:lol:

That's what I thought too.

Frankly, those who would save the child would act without thinking. That's what you always hear from those people profiled for doing such deeds.

Knowing I'm not a fantastic swimmer, I'd not jump in until I took off stuff that would likely drag me down, so I guess the kid would drown anyhow.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

15 Apr 2010, 8:20 am

zer0netgain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Gromit wrote:
That is the intuitively obvious answer. Here's a thought experiment for you two. You are walking along a river. You see a drowning child, just going under the surface. If you jump in right now you can save the kid. You will ruin your new suit and destroy your new iPod, because you don't have time to take off either. Saving the kid will cost you $500. You are on holiday in a poor country, the parents will not be able to pay you back. What will you do?


I'm thinking. I'm thinking.

ruveyn


:lol:

That's what I thought too.

Frankly, those who would save the child would act without thinking. That's what you always hear from those people profiled for doing such deeds.

Knowing I'm not a fantastic swimmer, I'd not jump in until I took off stuff that would likely drag me down, so I guess the kid would drown anyhow.


Or perhaps they think a bit faster and more accurately.