Can a T-Shirt Be Worth $275?
- Thread starter OrnotBitwise
- Start date
I wouldn’t say no one agrees with you IHG. I don’t think it’s admirable to buy a 275.00 t-shirt, and to be honest with you, I believe that the vast majority of those whom do, don’t give a shit about anybody but themselves, and aren’t contributing much if anything, to charity. And I do have a problem with that kind of rich person. I’m just saying, you can’t judge someone solely on what they buy, because you don’t know what they’re doing with the rest of their money.
And you make some good points.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
And not a single purchaser was forced to pay this extravagant price.
Could be used to help others. To these people, the measure is not done on an empathetic basis. They do not compare the happiness they will feel with the happiness they can imagine others will feel. The comparison is my happiness in having this versus my happiness I will feel when I help another. Even then, it is not unethical to consider self first.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
You also forget that there are non-fat-cat-ordinary people that work in offices, distribution centers and in sales forces that rely on Tiffany's, Armani, Michael Kors, etc revenues to provide them with a 401K, medical benefits, and a living. While I do think that people in 3rd world and developing countries are exploited, working in horrible factory conditions is a heck of a lot better than the alternatives for young women and children that have to fend for themselves.
Tiana that can't be justification alone for me. I see spending on extravagant items as a bad practice and as a bad business to be in. Let me add the disclaimer that I don't think the follwing example is equivalent in severity.
But I would not use the harm done to the office worker in RJ Reynolds or Altria as a reason to say that the cigarette business is immoral and that people should not support it.
Extravagant spending and smoking have one thing in common. They are bad for America. The fact someone makes a buck on the way to feed their family can't be a justification for industry that is negative by nature.
????? huh ?????? This makes no sense to me unless you have an arbitrary square footage limit and home features in your opinion of what constitutes as enough.
Obviously the home for $3 million would have a lot more to offer than the $300K home.
I would. A home that has modestly sized rooms, a kitchen living area bathrooms. Basic things you find in a home. Not huge unused rooms, vast empty property or gold plated bathroom fixtures.
Oh, so your jealous/prejudice. You should try not to judge people until you get to know them. Rich people can be down to earth and good if you take the time to get to know them.
I am not jealous because I do not aspire to live that lifestyle. I am somewhat of a stoicist. Am I predjudiced? Yes I admit it. However I generally do not judge it as being bad alone to be rich but how you use your wealth that I have a problem with.
Tiana that can't be justification alone for me. I see spending on extravagant items as a bad practice and as a bad business to be in. Let me add the disclaimer that I don't think the follwing example is equivalent in severity.
But I would not use the harm done to the office worker in RJ Reynolds or Altria as a reason to say that the cigarette business is immoral and that people should not support it.
Extravagant spending and smoking have one thing in common. They are bad for America. The fact someone makes a buck on the way to feed their family can't be a justification for industry that is negative by nature.
????? huh ?????? This makes no sense to me unless you have an arbitrary square footage limit and home features in your opinion of what constitutes as enough.
Obviously the home for $3 million would have a lot more to offer than the $300K home.
I would. A home that has modestly sized rooms, a kitchen living area bathrooms. Basic things you find in a home. Not huge unused rooms, vast empty property or gold plated bathroom fixtures.
Oh, so your jealous/prejudice. You should try not to judge people until you get to know them. Rich people can be down to earth and good if you take the time to get to know them.
I am not jealous because I do not aspire to live that lifestyle. I am somewhat of a stoicist. Am I predjudiced? Yes I admit it. However I generally do not judge it as being bad alone to be rich but how you use your wealth that I have a problem with.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I wouldn’t say no one agrees with you IHG. I don’t think it’s admirable to buy a 275.00 t-shirt, and to be honest with you, I believe that the vast majority of those whom do, don’t give a shit about anybody but themselves, and aren’t contributing much if anything, to charity. And I do have a problem with that kind of rich person. I’m just saying, you can’t judge someone solely on what they buy, because you don’t know what they’re doing with the rest of their money.
And you make some good points.
Thank you Darla. Let me clarify. I said the act of buying a 275 dollar T-shirt is unethical. However performing an unethical act does not make for an unethical person as a whole. I have done unethical things in my life which I regret. However I would hope to think of myself as an ethical person.
I do agree that our culture of bling bling is bad but not because of something you're not doing, but rather the negative effect blood diamonds have on the people that are being exploited.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
And not a single purchaser was forced to pay this extravagant price.
Nope nobody is forced you are right. Thats not why I find it unethical though.
Could be used to help others. To these people, the measure is not done on an empathetic basis. They do not compare the happiness they will feel with the happiness they can imagine others will feel. The comparison is my happiness in having this versus my happiness I will feel when I help another. Even then, it is not unethical to consider self first.[/i
We should however weight the merits of the good of doing an act purely for our beneift vs the benefit it would confer to others. It is my opinion that at the point a t-shirt is 275 dollars that pleasure that it confers it far outbalanced by the pleasure that can be given to others for that difference in money.
As I told Tiana though this is my personal view not my political one.
Nope nobody is forced you are right. Thats not why I find it unethical though.
Could be used to help others. To these people, the measure is not done on an empathetic basis. They do not compare the happiness they will feel with the happiness they can imagine others will feel. The comparison is my happiness in having this versus my happiness I will feel when I help another. Even then, it is not unethical to consider self first.[/i
We should however weight the merits of the good of doing an act purely for our beneift vs the benefit it would confer to others. It is my opinion that at the point a t-shirt is 275 dollars that pleasure that it confers it far outbalanced by the pleasure that can be given to others for that difference in money.
As I told Tiana though this is my personal view not my political one.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Sure, I agree - I would not ever, personally, spend $275 on such an item. (My Scottish DNA would rebel, and burst forth from my body in a scene reminiscent of Alien.)
However, that is my moral frame. In political terms, I don't want anyone telling me how much I am permitted to spend on a t-shirt, or bad-mouthing my decision when I exercise my freedom in a way they see as unacceptable. That is a judgment based on their morals, not mine.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I do agree that our culture of bling bling is bad but not because of something you're not doing, but rather the negative effect blood diamonds have on the people that are being exploited.
Thats one aspect. However another problem is not just with diamonds but with gold, fashion, and goods that have no real intrinsic value. People use this money instead of using it to better their community and instead the wealth they have ammassed over the years simply disappears and is not passed on to children or even helps to lift a persons socioeconomic status.
Urban dwellers are especially harmed by this and the white run corporate powers know this.
Thats one aspect. However another problem is not just with diamonds but with gold, fashion, and goods that have no real intrinsic value. People use this money instead of using it to better their community and instead the wealth they have ammassed over the years simply disappears and is not passed on to children or even helps to lift a persons socioeconomic status.
Urban dwellers are especially harmed by this and the white run corporate powers know this.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
A dollar does not cease to exist when spent. It's a voluntary redistribution of wealth.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Sure, I agree - I would not ever, personally, spend $275 on such an item. (My Scottish DNA would rebel, and burst forth from my body in a scene reminiscent of Alien.)
However, that is my moral frame. In political terms, I don't want anyone telling me how much I am permitted to spend on a t-shirt, or bad-mouthing my decision when I exercise my freedom in a way they see as unacceptable. That is a judgment based on their morals, not mine.
I agree 100% on political terms. However I am a libertarian that strongly believes in informal social controls in place of government ones. I believe that sometimes we should use our freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association to try to affect change in people for the good of society. I would most certainly chide a person for such an act.
My big problem is using violent coercive measures which we both know are the only ones the government ever uses.
However, that is my moral frame. In political terms, I don't want anyone telling me how much I am permitted to spend on a t-shirt, or bad-mouthing my decision when I exercise my freedom in a way they see as unacceptable. That is a judgment based on their morals, not mine.
I agree 100% on political terms. However I am a libertarian that strongly believes in informal social controls in place of government ones. I believe that sometimes we should use our freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association to try to affect change in people for the good of society. I would most certainly chide a person for such an act.
My big problem is using violent coercive measures which we both know are the only ones the government ever uses.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
A dollar does not cease to exist when spent. It's a voluntary redistribution of wealth.
No but if you spend it on things that are not useful to you and depreciate quickly over time that dollar definitely shrinks.
No but if you spend it on things that are not useful to you and depreciate quickly over time that dollar definitely shrinks.
uscitizen
Villified User
Voluntary ? Well in this case, but in medical care and other uses not nearly so voluntary.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
You could turn down medical care of course.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
The dollar is independent and no longer connected to the thing you converted it into. Yes, exchanging in this way does decrease one's own wealth, but that dollar continues on. People are free to make their own choices, even foolish choices. The choice more foolish than exchanging cash for a depreciable item is financing a depreciable item - (we'll delay that discussion as it is somewhat outside this thread.)
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
yes people are definitely free to make that choice. Is it a good one? No. Would we do well to discourage that choice by offering advice contrary to it? Yes.
I fully agree with that statement.
What's modest for you may not be modest for someone else. Really we don't need anything above what the Amish have or what small tribes throughout developing countries have. You're just comfortable with electricity, indoor plumbing, TV, and other spoils. The same judgement you place on people you consider to live extravagently can be placed on your lifestyle. Judging one's ethics based on such crude forms of subjectivity seems to be a bit unfair. There are many other factors that come into play.
Eloquent as usual, but at the end of the day just remember that being prejudiced is unethical as well!
uscitizen
Villified User
Yep I have that in my living will for the extreme case. but not usually a wise decision for those who want to continue living.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
What's modest for you may not be modest for someone else. Really we don't need anything above what the Amish have or what small tribes throughout developing countries have. You're just comfortable with electricity, indoor plumbing, TV, and other spoils. The same judgement you place on people you consider to live extravagently can be placed on your lifestyle. Judging one's ethics based on such crude forms of subjectivity seems to be a bit unfair. There are many other factors that come into play.
I don't have a problem with people having conveniences. Conveniences makes peoples lives easier and I won't sit and say they must work as hard as the Amish. If you want a GPS or a computer to make your life easier thats great. What I am against are things that people spend money on just to spend money on to make themselves look better or feel better than others. Its all about how much happiness it can bring you relative to how it can help others.
Living without electricity or plumbing would make people very unhappy.
As far as predjudice goes its all a matter of degree. We can't survive without predjudice. If a man in a ski mask holding a crow bar comes running at me I may prejudge that he intends me harm and take evasive action.
The problem is when we take predjudice to far or use predjudice of the wrong things.
I don't have a problem with people having conveniences. Conveniences makes peoples lives easier and I won't sit and say they must work as hard as the Amish. If you want a GPS or a computer to make your life easier thats great. What I am against are things that people spend money on just to spend money on to make themselves look better or feel better than others. Its all about how much happiness it can bring you relative to how it can help others.
Living without electricity or plumbing would make people very unhappy.
As far as predjudice goes its all a matter of degree. We can't survive without predjudice. If a man in a ski mask holding a crow bar comes running at me I may prejudge that he intends me harm and take evasive action.
The problem is when we take predjudice to far or use predjudice of the wrong things.