Replies

"Is it immoral to spend $50,000 on a watch for yourself, when the same sum will pay for operations or chemotherapy for a human being, and a perfectly good timepiece can be had for, say $500?"

Possibly, but not necessarily. A valuable watch is an asset, and there is nothing inherently immoral about asset formation. Without capital, civilization cannot exist.

"At least paying for a dog's prosthesis shows caring for a life other than your own. Is it not less selfish than spending thousands for frivolities for oneself?"

No. All life is not equal. Human life is infinitely more valuable than any other life. Further, the money spent on an expensive watch is not gone; it has just been converted to another form.

You make an interesting point about retained capital vs. "down the toilet".

However, I still need to say...

"Oh good God!"

Anyway, since human life is very valuable, how about the value of a dog or cat to his human? Perhaps keeping that animal going makes that person better mentally and emotionally. It's still not capital (maybe, unless as with a German Shepherd she has saved you $$$$$ by protecting your house and even yourself), I know, but maybe he's making some human's life better?

Well then, we'll just have to disagree. In your opinion, it is inherently immoral. In mine, it is not.

You have yet to differentiate between $500 an $50,000. In both cases, money is spent on a pet that could save a human life, yet somehow one is acceptable to you, and another is not. It is merely a difference in amount, not in kind.

You've argued very logically in the case of the watch. But by doing so, you've also expressed your belief that a person has no obligation to tend to the needs of others. A rich man is perfectly fine in buying another Rolex, if it adds to his portfolio. But what about spending that does not generate any capital? A party, or a lavish gown for his wife, or a worldwide cruise? In that case, he is spending solely for his own pleasure, and enhancing his own lifestyle. This is clearly the same case for spending on his pet.

I guess you missed the part I posted about capital formation, and how it benefits all, even the starving third world child. Overlooking the possibility that the surgery might advance medical knowledge for humans, the $50,000 goes to the coffers of prosthesis maker, and the vet, which in the form of profit eventually gets invested, which in turn helps fund new materials, or research, which benefits mankind with new human prosthesis, or new drugs, or more efficient farming techniques.

What I do think is immoral is telling other people how to spend their money. We all do it from time to time, myself included, but we're all better off when we let capitalism take its course.