Money. The lucrative substance that divides men, yet makes the world go 'round. Although money is a personal incentive, usually self-acquired, is one 'free' to spend it as he/she wills it?
Consider this, a man spends 9,668 USD on an expensive Henry Jayer Vosne - Romanne, Cote de Nuits wine, very much aware that this same amount of money could positively influence an underprivileged group of 1,000 people. Is this individual's actions appropriate?
From an ethical standpoint, one would argue 'No'; spending over 9K on a mere beverage that will be consumed in less than a span of a week is not doing anything to contribute to society. A consequentialist would further assert that when judging the appropriateness of an act, one must evaluate the potential positive an negative outcomes. If 9,668 USD are spent on merely self - indulgence, there is no significance. However, if this money were spent on helping humanistic causes, one could say that he/she is providing opportunities for the less privileged to enhance their quality of life.
On the flip side, one might claim that is not one's responsibility to engage in the welfare of others. If the man in question worked to acquire his money, why should he have to sacrifice his ability to indulge based on other's misfortunes? Donating one's money should be an option, not a requirement. Additionally, just because money is donating to a humanistic cause doesn't mean the individuals receiving aid will appropriately use this resource. Everyone has the right to do what they want with their money.
The knowledge issue at hand pertains to the extent to which one should be allowed to 'freely' spend their money. Yes it is true that not everyone has the freedom to spend extra money on themselves or on the less privileged, but for those who do,it is an important topic to discuss. When we indulge ourselves in worldly things, how far do we go? Is it necessary to have the smartphone instead of a fully operational 'basic' phone? Do females need to go the extra mile to buy a designer purse simply for the prestige of the brand name?
In a nutshell, our decisions are all tied to perception. What one may perceive as necessary will dictate his/her actions. Therefore, if one perceives money as a tool that is necessary to advance one's status, he or she will focus monetary decisions on: prestige and self - interest. Conversely, if an individual perceives money as a tool to help others, he or she will spend money in a manner that meets basic needs and is able to be donated to the less privileged. At the end of the day, the choice is ours.
Nevertheless, 'Money is valueless, except as it will satisfy [...]"
- Edwin T. Freedley
What is your satisfaction?
I understand the point that spending about 10, 000 dollars on a expensive wine bottle while there are people starving is unethical, but is it right to take that money and give it to the poor? No, it is not because it doesnt matter how much money I have, for example if I have 1 million dollars, I earned it and nobody has the right to take that away from me. It becomes my choice if I want to donate MY money to the poor. Nobody makes that decision for me.
ReplyDeleteThat is a stance that some would argue. However, despite what people 'feel', I think its important to evaluate why people feel that way. Yes, if someone has their portion of money it is at their discretion to spend it whichever way they choose. With this in mind, it is, ultimately, a matter of how one prioritizes. If someone believes money is meant for them and only them, he/she will spend their money in such a manner, selfishly. Likewise, if someone sees money as a tool that is not only for themselves, but for others, he or she will spend their money selflessly.
DeleteWhen it comes down to it, we all have the choice to spend how we want to.