Is it ethical to spend money for personal entertainment?

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps many of you (including me) don't usually think of anything wrong with it. However, keep the following in mind...
-The money you spent on entertainment could've been used to help another person struggling to survive (perhaps people in third world countries, or any type of charity)
-There are many ways to entertain yourself without spending any money.

I made this thread after seeing on the news of some people making videos on youtube of smashing iPads and some people putting them in blenders. I find destroying a new iPad such a waste of money. There are many other cheaper ways to entertain yourself.

Being wasteful isn't such a good thing, and certainly there are people starving in the world, but some people (such as Johny Paula and the rest of the Microwave Show crew) make their money from ad revenue on YouTube. That is actually some people's sole income, such as Nalts on YouTube. I am currently unemployed and it is near impossible to find work in my area, and many other people are in that same boat. People do need some amount of stress relief even if they are unemployed, especially when they have to put up with lame excuses from employment interviews (the excuses are getting lamer by the femptosecond), and the pick-and-choose discrimination of employers, and so many other stressful items of life.

People who have excess money, in relation to the budget of necessary expenses, should certainly consider helping those in need in a way that they want to be helped. However, giving money to random charities will tend to have a fair portion of donated money absorbed in "executive fees".

I don't watch tv but I do need the internet to read the news and what's going on in the world as well as a place to vent and communicate.


Ethical?

I don't know what's ethical. I've volunteered in both human and animal shelters. No matter the human condition, humans themselves can be pretty "unethical" when it comes to spending money. For instance, I loaned money to a friend who said she needed it to find a place for her and her kid away from her abusive spouse. In time I found out she had gone back to him and was spending more money by bailing him out of jail. So it's a little hard to know where money is put in terms of "basic needs".

However, I do try and provide as much supplies ie clothes, blankets, toys, food, etc around my place and the neighborhood for my aunt who works in Kenya. Most of this stuff goes to kids and adults who have or have a family member with AIDS. I've also provided money to places such as shelters and of course the Haitian disaster. Only problem is, I have to figure how much of that is going to be used toward the effort vs the expenses and fees for those working in the organization. Be nice if money could heal things,but it doesn't grow on trees. The most basic need imo are water, food and shelter. Other than that, depends on what will happen in the future. I do believe especially in america we are living in the most materialistic world and yes it does sicken me especially to see how much is wasted. Should be illegal imo but what do I know, I'm not as en-lighted or as educated as the rest of the men's club....

Funny thing about this topic,yesterday and today I had a wake up call. My running water wasn't working. I've been out of it since yesterday and been supplying myself with bottled water. When I think about it, it's astonishing to know that there are people out there living without running water, running water used for showers, toilets, sinks, laundry, etc. I also don't have running air condition but I've been without that for a couple of years.

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

ruveyn

It's my money, I can do what I want with it. If I want to give my money or time to charity I will(and I have just to throw that out there) or I won't. I don't think being wasteful such as destroying iPads or whatever as a means of entertainment is ethical I guess. Big difference to that and me going to a movie rather than watching TV or something.

I'm a utilitarian. So no, I don't think it is. Of course, I still do it - but anytime I spend money on a luxury item I do so knowing that the money could have gone to charity, and would have done more good if it did.

I don't spend much money in general, though, and I very rarely buy anything that I'd consider a luxury item (obviously, I imagine we'd all have different understandings of what a 'luxury item' is). The main thing I spend money on is books, and all of the ones I buy are related to philosophy. So I don't see them as luxury items, because they are helpful to my university course*. I'm quite lucky, though, because many things that most people spend money on simply don't entertain me - dvds, computer games, fashionable clothes, going out to various places (restuarants, bowling, the cinema, concerts, etc), buying lots of alcohol to get drunk at parties, etc etc. I just don't do much, and there are very few activities that entertain me. It's probably much easier for me to live with few luxuries than is for most other people.

* I've suspended from my course until next January, because I was having serious panic attacks, and they started interfering with my studies. Hopefully I'll be able to sort them out in this time.

I guess we could argue all day about the semantics of ethics, before you know it, a herd of sheep will be blazing by to rip common sense into pieces. I think I know where j6's question's coming from. I personally feel consumed with anger and guilt when I see people in dire need of basic necessities in order to survive while watching people in other classes and parts of the world waste that which isn't needed to sustain themselves. The world and its inhabitants are far too chaotic to live in "utopia".

Interesting how I found this today AFTER I made this thread
http://money.ca.msn.com/savings-debt/ga ... d=23854197

By communist standards, yes that is highly unethical.

Change the word "communist" to "selfless" or "compassion" and it could work.

People can spend their money on whatever they want to spend it on, provided it's legal. If somebody is a compulsive spender and can't spend their money properly then that's their problem.

The concept seems to be that everybody should, to be ethical, live minimally and give their extra earnings away to people in great need. The entire huge entertainment industry, the bulk of unnecessary communication (such as this site), all food that is eaten for flavor rather than nourishment, all decoration, all time spent frivolously, etc. should then disappear and we would then inspirationally live totally dull and boring lives and feel good about it. No thanks.

This presumption is the catch with your argument - the problem typically is the governance (or lack of) and corruption in these countries around the world. Throwing money at them is never going to fix the problem. If you saw the result of live aid in the 80's, the millitias got new guns, but nothing changed in practise.

Asides destroying an ipad is wasting man hours and a little bit of energy, rather than loads of natural resources. Little different to someone having a year off sitting in a room with a lightbulb on...

I wouldn't count the internet as a luxury item, because it's a valuable resource for education and social networking are very useful for people who aren't so good at communicating to others face-to-face. Plus, there's a diversity of entertainment on the internet that doesn't come at any added cost (wikipedia, youtube, etc).

In any case, I think everybody needs to entertain themselves. If you spent your entire alternating between working and being bored, and giving as much as you possibly could to charities, that would probably have a negative impact on you. You probably wouldn't be as productive or creative when you do work, and you might end up becoming depressed and losing motivation. It's certainly conceivable that if many people lived like this, and these negative consequences did occur, they might end up making less money than they would otherwise, and they would thus have less money to give away.

Really, the point is just that I doubt anybody could stand by the principle absolutely, and it might be counter-productive if we tried. Of course, having said that, we have to keep in mind that there are millions of people out there who are literally starving to death, while I'm here complaining that the fruit salad is too warm because somebody left it out the fridge.

I'm sure that the use of the words "dull" and "boring" are relative. Firstly, you wouldn't know whats dull and boring if there was not anything less dull or boring. Secondly, I'm not saying that people should live dull and boring lives. People should spend money on productive things that helps others and if they want to have time to enjoy themselves, they should think twice before choosing something expensive when they can enjoy themselves with something cheaper.

I hope you're not suggesting that your only moral judgement of things is by looking at whats legal and whats not in whatever country/state you live in. It was legal to murder jews in concentration camps in Nazi Germany in ww2 (an extreme example of course)