Replies

As long as children are starving, let's none of us buy anything frivolous - no books, no Christmas decorations or gifts, not even computers and Internet access.

Dingdingdingdingding!!! We have a winner!!

So well put! No movie tickets, no pay-per-view, no sports tickets, no running shoes, no DVD rentals, no cable TV, no satellite TV, no Plasma/LCD/DLP monitors, no books, no CDs, no iPods, no vacations, no cruises, no golf clubs, no greens fees, no restaurant lunches, no stocks, no bonds, no mutual funds, no 401Ks, no IRA, no landscaping, no barbeque grills, no leafblower, no grassmower, no wallpaper, no paint, no pictures, no framing, no digital cameras, no rugs, no DSP, no email, no computers, no air conditioning, no SUVs, no air travel, no dogs, no cats, no parrots, no tropical fish, no classic cars, no surf boards, no skis, no lift tickets, no JW Black Label, no margaritas, no fancy-schmancy boutique beers, no wine, no fancy motorbikes, no Priuses, no automatic transmissions, no college educations, no rock concerts, no C&W concerts, no trips to Vegas, no trips to Branson, no timeshares, no FreeRepublic monthly subscriptions, no nothing that goes beyond just the barest survival ...

2ndDivisionVet and dsc - let me know when you have forever sworn off all of the above and we'll work on your beatification.

Gadfrey, it’s fascinating. It really is.

Hardly anyone is maximally conservative on every single issue. Even here on FR, there are some who hold to the position of the left on one or more issues – e.g., abortion, legalization of drugs, stem cell research, et cetera.

The fascinating thing is that when conservatives are arguing in support of one of these non-conservative positions, they even *argue* in the style, métier, voice…the oeuvre of the left. Ten minutes later, they could be arguing a conservative position with complete rationality, and ten minutes after that be arguing that non-conservative position using the invalid debate stratagems of the left.

For instance, after I argued – on moral grounds – against spending huge sums of money on veterinary medicine for pets, the most common response was not a moral argument in favor of spending huge sums of money on veterinary medicine for pets, but rather an attempt to evade the moral question by incorrectly accusing me of trying to tell people what they must do with their money.

Perhaps we have lost sight of this in PC Amerikastan, but it is entirely rational to think something immoral without immediately demanding laws against it. Perhaps we no longer trust each other to say, “I disapprove of what you do, but I have no right to interfere.”

One can simultaneously:
1. Agree that it is not given person’s job to provide medical care to anyone he is not otherwise responsible for;
2. Agree that said person has a right to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on veterinary care for, say, a poodle;
3. Hold the moral opinion that said money was wasted and would better have been spent on health care for human beings, and that said person is to that extent morally culpable;
4. Oppose any legislation or other sanction, including taxation, to coerce said person to use his money in one way or another.

Most of the responses to my statement, however, presumed that item 3 above necessarily indicates that one is calling for force against the morally culpable individual. Those on the left make a habit of this sort of argumentation; we should do better.

One person said, “It is my job to ensure that an animal in my care is taken care of to the best of my ability.” I would argue that there are limits beyond which the expenditure of funds cannot be morally justified. The same writer challenged me to “step away from (my) keyboard and get right on that.” This is valid. I believe in voluntary charity, and not the coercive methods of the left. I give as much as I can afford, after putting my own children first.

He also said, “Besides, the more I deal with people (and even children) the more I love my dog.”

Mark Twain said, “If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.” But Mark Twain became bitter and cynical late in life. While dogs cannot be as perfidious as a person, neither can they rise to the heights of which man is capable.

Another writer evaded the moral question by using the reductio ad absurdum. This is a type of logical argument in which one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong because led to an absurd result. In this case, the writer said, “As long as children are starving, let's none of us buy anything frivolous - no books, no Christmas decorations or gifts, not even computers and Internet access.”

The reductio ad absurdum is only valid, though, if the assumption advanced is the one actually made by the previous speaker, and necessarily leads to the absurd result. This writer is seeking through his conclusion to put words in my mouth. He would have me saying, “No one is to enjoy anything frivolous so long as children are starving.” This is a ridiculously extreme position, and one that I never implied. Further, what I actually did say does not lead to this conclusion.

Despite, therefore, the extremely long-winded repetition of this invalid conclusion by yet a third writer, who incautiously fell into the same logical error, that dog just won’t hunt.

A fourth writer evaded the moral issue by recognizing only the legal dimensions of the question. He wrote, “The nice thing about living in a free country is not having to justify what we do with our own property.” Yes, indeed, and we like it that way. After agreeing on that, anyone who cares to can look at the moral dimension.

Another writer appears to be a misanthrope, who claims that he would save his cat before he would save 90% of the people he knows. That’s just sad.

I suppose people who do not wish to consider the moral dimensions of this question will continue to misrepresent the issue. There’s nothing I can do about that, and I would certainly not argue that everyone must take a vow of poverty and contribute everything to the poor. However, in my opinion of this moral question, a person who is well-to-do and spends lavish sums of money on pets instead of contributing to charity – I have recently heard of six-figure vet bills –is acting wrongly.