Ethical thought experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not taking advantage of people, conducting business honestly, and paying your employees a fair market wage.
 
Did the peasants under the king receive a fair market wage?
 
Last edited:
I don’t have a solution because I don’t think there is a particular problem.
 
This would need to be a whole separate thread. The peasants also didn’t work for kings, but usually for vassals.

The point is, the church has no problem with people having wealth, provided it’s acquired without violating moral teachings of the church and that the person who acquires it also gives alms and charity.
 
I think morality is all about doing things that are good for our soul, if buying a Porsche will help your soul, then it is good for you to buy a Porsche (even though this is unlikely). If you are helping the poor only to look virtuous, it is better not to help at all.
Intrinsic wrongs are simply actions revealed through natural law that will always hurt our relationship with God, without exception.
 
Last edited:
I voted “somewhat” wrong. I think there’s a distinction to be made between wanting nice things for improved safety/comfort/performance, and wanting super luxurious or rare things for he status they impart. I think this case may fall into the latter category.

But as others have said if someone has done well in life and has given plenty back to their church and community, who are we to tell him or her what car to drive?
 
I’d buy myself a Subaru as my current car is eight years old and due for replacement next year anyway. I’d also likely donate to some worthy cause of my choosing and then bank the rest.

My husband has a sports car. He bought it several years ago with cash he’d saved for that purpose. It’s his and he owns it free and clear. I don’t care what he owns and I don’t care how he spends his money as long as what we need and agree on is paid and taken care of appropriately.

There’s nothing unethical about spending one’s money how one sees fit.

People generally purchase what they can afford because they want it and can reasonably afford it. That’s not right or wrong. It just is. I could live in 800 square feet. I choose not to and can afford not to. So I don’t. No moral connotation and I’m not living outside my means. Most people actually aren’t. There are those keeping up with the Joneses on the Browns’ pay as the old expression goes, but generally they’re the sad exception rather than the rule.

Not every action has a moral connotation for the actor. Most of the time it just is. Who am I to assume what someone’s intent is when they buy something, no matter the item or its cost? Really, I don’t have that much time on my hands.

I honestly couldn’t care less and can’t understand why anyone would judge anyone for things they buy or even care to notice in the first place. If someone - and I’m one of them - wants an iPhone, that’s their business. I don’t care what they’re using it for or what they don’t use it for; it has no bearing on my daily life either way. People generally buy what they want and what they can afford. I use electronic devices until they die. I buy Apple because I can afford it and because neither the product nor their tech support has ever let me down, even when I had issues in Korea (where there literally isn’t one Apple store - it’s the land of Samsung and there’s not even an Apple store in Seoul; I don’t mean a place that won’t fix iPhones, I mean an actual Apple store). Nothing to do with status. I buy what I like and can afford. When I couldn’t afford Apple, I did just fine with what I had. But Apple as a company has actually done more for me than any other electronics manufacturer I’ve ever experienced, so unless my finances change, they have a loyal customer on their hands.

To be honest, people don’t know as much as they think they know about the business of others. I like nice clothes. It’s my thing. I bet 90% of my closet was purchased at Goodwill. Good clothes - very nice clothes. I bet most people don’t assume that. That’s their problem, not mine.

“Wealth” is relative, and not forbidden by the Church. My wealth is someone else’s poverty.
 
Last edited:
Context is everything. Since in the example given, I am aware of the misery of those stricken with malaria, it would be seriously wrong for me to buy the Porsche when my conscience tells me to use the money to aid the sick and the dying. However, if I am a person who is unaware of the plagues of malaria and other mosquito-borne illnesses, unless my conscience prompts me to use the money for some other altruistic endeavor, then technically it would not be wrong for me to spend the money on myself. My difficulty comes when I try to imagine a reasonably intelligent person in 2018 not realising that to spend $150,000.00 entirely on a frivolous purchase for oneself is a wicked act, especially if I am a devout Christian or even just a person who strives to meet a high ethical and moral standard. That’s a roundabout way of saying that no, buying the Porsche is not necessarily wrong in the absolute. It depends on the person and their consciousness, not only of good and evil, but of the misery of others and their own moral obligation to alleviate it if possible.
 
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...
Here is a question for your thought experiment. Did the person consider or ponder buying the nets but then decided to the Porsche instead? Or did the nets never cross his mind and the Porsche is simply something he always dreamed of?

Because if he pondered the nets and felt it was the right thing to do, and then bought the Porsche anyway, then he most likely is sinning (at least venial). But he can’t be held responsible for not buying nets if it never crossed his mind.

God is really the only one who subjectively knows, but since this is a thought experiment only, you can tell us what was in the guys heart and mind.
 
Last edited:
I’m leaning towards it is not wrong to buy the Porsche. Under the doctrine of double effect, an action can only be taken if:
  1. the action itself is not morally wrong (owning or buying a Porsche is morally neutral)
  2. the intent of the actor is to only achieve the good (the buyer does not intend the deaths caused by malaria)
  3. the bad effect is not the cause of the good effect (buying an expensive car does not directly cause the malaria deaths)
    It satisfies the criterion for an action to be taken. Are there objections to this?
Buying a Porsche is unrelated to people dying on the other side of the world. But I think what makes it “somewhat wrong” (my choice) is because buying an (second) expensive car is completely self serving.
phil19034 said:
Did the person consider or ponder buying the nets
Click to expand...
Yes, he is aware of this choice, and like most people, his conscience tells him it is a better choice.
 
Last edited:
kill051 said:
My difficulty comes when I try to imagine a reasonably intelligent person in 2018 not realising that to spend $150,000.00 entirely on a frivolous purchase for oneself is a wicked act, especially if I am a devout Christian or even just a person who strives to meet a high ethical and moral standard.
Click to expand...
Most things purchased - from a cell phone to shoes to a car - are actually somewhat frivolous for those who can afford it. There’s no moral value attached to an object. I could buy shoes from the Family Dollar store, but I can afford not to, so I don’t. I could buy $50 uniform boots, but they last no time and I wear them every day, so I spend about four times that - because I can afford it. I could likely use a flip phone, but I don’t want to, and can afford not to, so I don’t. I’m also not starving and I don’t have bill collectors knocking down my door.

When I couldn’t afford it, I didn’t buy it, and I didn’t worry about the moral choices of those who could.

Spending money on oneself isn’t immoral. I am very lucky, yes - and I also work very hard, and I put up with a lot of garbage for what I do (as does anyone who works at any job in any capacity in any field).

Judging someone’s motives might be, though.
 
Last edited:
I knew it was a bad idea for me to participate in this experiment. How easily I fall into the sin of judging others! It is one of my greatest faults. Thanks, Pup7, for waking me up. ❤️
 
Well, I won’t lie.

I can’t fathom the rationale behind $200K cars and multimillion dollar homes myself. That makes us human, I think. But I’m sure people look at me and think that sometimes as well. We all do it to some extent, I suppose. Mostly because I can’t imagine having that kind of money to blow (and I’m laughing at myself when I say that, so don’t get me wrong). But I don’t think it’s a morals call.

I could do more - really, we all could. But it’s not wrong to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor. I think it’s wrong to do it JUST to impress, but I also think that’s actually the minority of people, and that most just do what they can afford to do. Sometimes that’s better than what some of us can do, and I think that’s okay.

Doing it just to appear cool is - to me - always wrong, but that also speaks to a self-confidence problem that I’m blessed not to have in that regard, you know? So I don’t think it’s wrong to pray for that person to see that that’s not what makes them a great person - in our eyes, in the eyes of God, or even in their own eyes.
 
Last edited:
Lia said:
But I think what makes it “somewhat wrong” (my choice) is because buying an (second) expensive car is completely self serving.
Click to expand...
But we cannot be certain of that. We can’t judge other people because we do not have perfect knowledge of other people’s intentions.
So whilst I wouldn’t buy a Porsche myself I voted “not at all wrong”. But just as I can’t judge whether it is wrong I can’t say that it is the right thing to do either.
 
Most likely what would happen if you bought the 30,000 mosquito nets is they’d arrive at the intended port and be confiscated by some corrupt official figuring he can sell them. Corruption is the biggest problem in helping Africa.

Better me with the Porsche than the corrupt official.

Maybe, the people who forgo things, like the widow giving a penny in the Bible, get more grace to counter their sins. In that case, I really should work on giving more to charity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top