Ethical thought experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lia

Guest
After unexpectedly winning a large sum of money, you think about replacing your perfectly decent car with a $150,000 Porsche. You would enjoy driving around in the Porsche much more than in your current car. However, you are aware that this money could buy and distribute 30,000 mosquito nets in Africa. This quantity of nets would save many lives and prevent even more people from getting seriously ill.

From yours or the Church’s point of view, would buying the Porsche be:
  • Seriously wrong
  • Somewhat wrong
  • Not at all wrong
0 voters
Why do you think so?
 
Last edited:
People in Africa have factories that make nets. While I wouldn’t buy a porche (The argument asks I do)is there anything wrong with owning something? No.

I’m always annoyed by peoples treatment of Africa, Yes we should help but not by giving them basic needs but by investing in Africa.
 
Personally, I always think buying something like a car that’s that expensive is at least a little bit wrong.

That said, buying that car supports all the people who work to manufacture it. The same is true for all the other disgustingly-expensive luxury goods. Yeah, there are probably more worthwhile things you could put your money to, but by purchasing that object you are keeping the people who build it employed…

I wouldn’t buy a Porsche, but I probably would design and build my own house ^^
 
Last edited:
A mosquito net is as much an investment as building a hospital, unlike providing food and water, which only see short term benefits.

So your position would be it is not at all wrong to choose the Porsche over saving the lives others?

What if you are walking past a pond, and you see a child in danger of drowning. But you happen to be wearing your most expensive pair of shoes which will get ruined if you rush into the pond (you don’t have time to take it off).
Do you think it would be not at all wrong to choose your expensive shoes over the life of the drowning child? If you don’t, what is the moral difference between that and the first thought experiment?
 
Last edited:
Not the same thing, a net in this case is like buying a lock on your door. It’s a protection vs future threat not immediate ones.
 
If the answer is wrong then one has to agree not to buy anything at all unless you are also living at a level of the poorest person in the world.
 
If you replace the nets with drugs to clear malaria parasites, why do most people think it is okay to not do anything about children dying from malaria, but not okay to ignore a drowning child?
 
Last edited:
The morality doesn’t come from examination of the state of the rest of the world but whether or not you spend all your money on your comfort. If you are wealthy and only spend your money on yourself then if you don’t give to charity that is wrong. But if you buy a fancy car and give a lot to charity that is fine.
 
There will be poor always…

I think the answer lies in the heart.
Would I say such a person is doing something wrong? No. I can’t judge that.
Would I do such a thing? No. I would use some of the money for charity.
 
Our moral obligations change based on distance. We have a greater obligation to those in our family and those literally around us. So for instance we have a greater obligation to those in our own town than to those half a world away. This answers the issue of walking by a drowning child and doing nothing.

If you literally see a person in immediate need and do nothing that is problematic. But even then there is nuance. For instance it doesn’t mean you have to give money to every beggar. You should however save a drowning person if you can. And even then you do have to consider protecting your own life; drowning people can drown those who try to help them.
 
exnihilo said:
But if you buy a fancy car and give a lot to charity that is fine.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree.
I think it depends whether there really is a need to.
If you buy an expensive car for safety purposes. Ok. If you buy fancy car for work purposes. Ok.
If you buy several fancy cars just for self indulgence, I don’t care if you donate billions to charity. Do you really need so many fancy cars?
 
ratio1 said:
If you buy several fancy cars just for self indulgence, I don’t care if you donate billions to charity. Do you really need so many fancy cars?
Click to expand...
The Church has never said we can’t have extremely nice things. If you start looking into pure need then no one needs anything beyond food, water, air, and shelter (simple shelter). Most of what we have are wants.
 
Last edited:
I guess I wasn’t talking about basic needs.
It’s ok to to have a fancy car if you are a billionaire. But do you really need 10 fancy cars for example?
 
Id have to ask questions as to why somebody would need a 150,000$ sports car. Not much utility unless you are rescuing people, like Batman, and need a fast car. People usually buy expensive cars for the “status, luxury, vanity”. To me, it has nothing to do with affordability. It seems fairly wasteful. It’s like getting pre-made toilet paper rolls, made from 20 dollar bills. As for the mosquito net thing, i would say keep your perfectly good car and go be the money to such a cause, sure.
 
Yes, this person in the experiment does not need the Porsche car, he wants it. It would be better of course, if he uses the money for something for meaningful. But the question is would it be wrong at all to spend it on himself for “status, luxury, vanity” knowing that lives will be lost because of his choice?
 
Well it is really easy to criticize the billionaire for living beyond his needs while ignoring us doing the same. Sure, the billionaire has ten fancy cars while we maybe just enjoy have one (and all modern cars are fancy). But the issue is the same.

I have a twenty year old car that happens to be from there luxury division of a maker. Every modern car, even the cheapest, is nicer than my car. But I don’t begrudge anyone for having a nicer car. I don’t think myself a saint for keeping my car.
 
Lia said:
Yes, this person in the experiment does not need the Porsche car, he wants it. It would be better of course, if he uses the money for something for meaningful. But the question is would it be wrong at all to spend it on himself for “status, luxury, vanity” knowing that lives will be lost because of his choice?
Click to expand...
By your argument, lives are lost for every single purchase we make on ourselves, because we could have spent that money on something like mosquito nets.

The reason you have an issue with the Porsche and not on something like a new Honda, is the sum of the expense.
 
Last edited:
Lia said:
But the question is would it be wrong at all to spend it on himself for “status, luxury, vanity” knowing that lives will be lost because of his choice?
Click to expand...
No it wouldn’t. No more than it would be wrong for you buying yourself ice cream.
 
That’s why it comes down to reasonable needs and wants.
I think it’s reasonable for a billionaire to have one fancy car. But to have ten… my question to him would be why is nine not enough?

I think it is reasonable for someone living in the modern world to have a modern car.

So for me it all comes down to reasonableness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top