[djsbs]

This seems like a judgement call from someone who doesn't understand any of the three topics and therefore sees only the negatives.

As an example, dog breeding which I know least of the three topics, provided society (the object in your sentence) with very specific work dogs that have served society for centuries. Imagine the Inuit without their sled dogs.

Jewelry and luxury cars are easier to justify, but Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”

[shituonui]

>Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”

I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry:

1. Luxury cars are often wasteful or dangerous to be around.

2. The resources for jewelry are scarce and often extracted with slave labor.

3. Both are often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them.

I love fast cars and I wear jewelry. I hate the fact that these beautiful things are corrupted by their use as tools of oppression.

[djsbs]

1.“I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry:”

Let me revise, since I have met ppl like OP:

Im so bewildered at this attitude that I’ll just ask “what problem do people like you possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”

2. Jewlery can be made with slave labor. There is nothing inherent in jewelry that it must be made with slave labor. Thus, you can object to a available jewelry or specific jewelry but your objection isn't valid for jewelry generally.

This is like objecting to running shoes. De facto they’re made in sweatshops, and available sneakers supports slavery. But nothing inherent in trainers requires slaves.

3. As to the scarcity of resources for jewelry, so what? Thats a moral judgement on your behalf that jewelry is inherently less worthy than, say, an Orthodox icon, or bullion as a hedge against inflation.

4. As to cars, most of your objection appear to be directed at their drivers. How is a VW golf more dangerous than an A3? Only if you assume nastier drivers drive luxury cars. Let me assure you I drive like an utter asshole on my $3000 assessed value car (mea culpa. But I live in the mountains, the car is stick…) Nor does the A3 consume more resources than the Golf to make.

5. As your third objection, I dont agree with your statement: “[…]often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them”. Clearly some ppl buy expensive things to show off, but I dont think it follows that their intention is to demean. I think that says more about the feelings of inadequacy that we feel next to a fancy car. Feelings we rationalize by telling ourselves they’re doing it on purpose to spite us. They probably aren't giving you a second’s thought.

I think your use of the word “often” is telling. Myself, I’d love to have a luxury car but one criteria would have to be that it is not obvious that it is a luxury car. It follows that luxury cars are not purchased solely to show off (and therefore immoral?)

6. Look, if the OP had objected to cars I wouldn't have bothered to object. Maybe I’d disagree (on the fence on cars), but I can see that an argument can be made that cars, electric or otherwise, are inherently immoral.

The statement was just self-righteous

EDIT: typos. Writing this on my 5 year old SE

[shituonui]

I don't really believe that luxury cars or jewelry are inherently evil and won't defend those claims. I gave those as examples of (obvious) reasons people might object to those things.

>Clearly some ppl buy expensive things to show off, but I dont think it follows that their intention is to demean.

I don't think it matters what the intention is. Our society universally denigrates the poor and elevates wealth to a virtue. Anything that contributes to that has got to go.

[odd_perfect_num]

It sounds a bit like you're arguing that people can't have nice things because it will make others feel bad?

It's definitely an unfortunate truth that our brains are wired to compare ourselves and our belongings with others. Still, it's kind of nice to have nice things.

[artfulhippo]

Money spent on luxuries/social status signaling is money not given to reduce suffering. If you have any sense of empathy for the billions of people living with low incomes, it's obvious that luxury spending is resource misallocation.

[djsbs]

What’s obvious is economic misunderstanding.

The resources “misallocated” in luxury goods motivate and teach us to make better mass goods. The car industry is a great example. luxury vehicles have driven R&D that have made cars safer and cleaner (disc breaks, fuel injection). Tesla has put electric cars just within reach for all by charging rich people for what were (are?) bad cars with lots of status signing

Jewelry is a form of art and of adding beauty to our everyday life. I will not apologize for the $80 pearl studs my girls wear, or my wife’s shawl.

Nor is it tenable that money used on a luxury item represent resources taken away from the poor. The resources to make a Lexus or a Toyota are largely the same.

Sure, I could buy a Nissan (btw, I drive a six year old Kia and a used base manual 2013 Golf) and send a cheque to Africa. But I’ll raise you - you can drop every expenditure you have except basic needs and send the money to Africa. Like my ethic professor pointed out, that $5 beer is five child-days.

Unless you’re willing to live like an African, your position is hypocritical - jealousy masked with self righteousness. Philosophers who feel better than other, richer, people because they’ve explained away their own behavior.

Excuse my elitism, but its pop Buddhism with all the vulgarities of pop.

[shituonui]

Oh yes, the expertise of Patek Philippe will trickle down any day now.

[1123581321]

It has. Wristwatch mechanical and material expertise has greatly diffused, resulting in good watches at many price points.

[shituonui]

I'm sure that's a real benefit to all the people living paycheck-to-paycheck who wear mechanical watches.

[djsbs]

Again, sarcasm.

Patek Phillipe is 180 years old. “Normal” people used to need mechanical watches to get to work on time until 40 years ago.

Anyway, luxury goods don't have to justify themselves (at all) solely on their technological transfer. They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence.

There is nothing immoral in a watch that took a year of human hours to build that isn't immoral about Japanese artisanal charcoal.

[1123581321]

For the ones who want a cheap watch that works well and looks good, absolutely.

[djsbs]

OP spoke in generalities, and I answered in generalities with specific examples merely as illustrative aids.

You just used sarcasm.

[shituonui]

Sarcasm is a perfectly valid rhetorical device. If you find it rude, I apologize.

Some luxury goods are beautiful. Some are high-performance. However, many of them are prized merely because they are exclusive.

I find very expensive jewelry, almost without exception, to be gaudy and hideous. Even if it were tasteful, it could be made with artificial or semiprecious gems and clad base metals with no change in appearance.

There is nothing from high-end jewelry that can trickle down to the mass market. The entire industry is, by design, based around the work of skilled artisans. If it were possible to mass-produce jewelry, it would no longer be exclusive and would thus be less desirable.

Luxury cars are an interesting example. They are usually prized for their technical excellence. Some of the innovations may actually make it to market. The same definitely does not apply to fashion or to the majority of other luxury goods.

[djsbs]

“ Sarcasm is a perfectly valid rhetorical device. If you find it rude, I apologize.”

Its perfectly valid rhetorical device, a needlessly aggressive one that is good at putting down but never constructs. Worse of all, a rhetorical device that has become trite.

Im naturally very sarcastic. In my late 30s, I see it as a personal flaw that has brought me nothing but cheap dopamine hits.

[1123581321]

Similarly to watches, jewelry techniques, styles materials have made their way far down market. Exclusivity (or a certain designer's mark) is just one buyer preference.

Take a look at the jewelry case at Walmart or Kohl's (if you're in the United States) to see what's happened.

[f6v]

1. I'm talking about the society at present. 2. Key part of my argument is “net”.

[djsbs]

Having added a timeline (point 1), I’ll agree - dog breeding today appears to me, a non-expert, barbaric.

So, two people on the internet have agreed! Let’s put aside jewelry and luxury and have a virtual toast:

To your health, my cyber-interlocutor!