Pontiac: "You can not judge another on how much he spends on his pet compared to how much he gives to charity."
You: "Au contraire, mon frere. Such judgements are an absolute, inescapable moral duty imposed on us by God."
RobRoy: "Or video games, or cars, or bicycles."
You: "Video games and bicycles don't require huge sums. Some cars do, but I'm not sure what the moral calculus is."
RobRoy: "Fact is, as stupid as I think spending money on pets is, how other poeple choose to spend their disposable income is not my business."
You: "It may not be your business, but that doesn't mean that it's moral, or even morally neutral.
Your later comment: "A $5,000 operation: hard call, lots of things to think about." and "A $50,000 prosthesis for a dog that lost a leg: clearly immoral."
Socal Pubbie: "I don't see why it is immoral on its face."
You: "Because $50,000 is a sum that could pay for operations or chemotherapy for human beings that would otherwise die, and the delivery of the funds and the medical services is practical. People are more important than animals."
Alrighty then.
It seems that when it comes to pets, the boundary between moral and immoral is in the neighborhood of $5,000. Good to know that.
Some luxury cars of course cost way more than that beyond basic transportation, but there we're not sure what the moral calculus is.
Judging people by what they spend on their pets vs on charity is an absolute, inescapable moral duty imposed on us by God.
It is apparently not an absolute, inescapable moral duty imposed by God to judge people by what they spend on their cars vs on charity.
Since all of us here on FR aspire to lead moral lives, could you give us your a list of all types of discretionary expenditures beyond basic survival needs and their applicable moral/immoral dollar boundaries? OK if some of the boundaries are a range - we can work wih that. Please annotate each item as to whether the inescapable moral duty to judge people by what they spend on it is applicable to that item.
Thanks so much!
“It seems that when it comes to pets, the boundary between moral and immoral is in the neighborhood of $5,000. Good to know that.”
No beating around the bush, eh? You’re just going to get right down to the dishonest argumentation, and make no pretense of good faith.
“Judging people by what they spend on their pets vs on charity is an absolute, inescapable moral duty imposed on us by God.”
Reading this kind of dishonesty makes me want to go take a shower. You may think it clever, but any idiot can misrepresent an argument.
“Since all of us here on FR aspire to lead moral lives”
I see no sign of that on your part. You’re not even concerned enough with leading a moral life to argue honestly on an Internet discussion forum.
By the way, you should change your screen name. Honesty is an indispensable component of conservatism.