money morals

[arethinn]

There was a post in childfree recently where someone linked to a news article about someone who was undergoing a treatment to have their leg bones stretched because they had been born with a certain form of dwarfism, and was complaining that insurance was covering that "frivolous" procedure, whereas they generally would not cover sterilization surgery. Everyone who replied seemed to think that surgery needed to correct a birth defect was certianly not frivolous (I agree). One person contrasted it to cosmetic surgeries like liposuction and breast augmentation, saying that those were "the really frivolous ones" (to paraphrase).

I responded to that person disagreeing that such were necessarily frivolous, and saying that I thought that a carefully considered surgery to correct a flaw (even if only self-perceived) that has given a person self-esteem problems could be quite beneficial. (I do shake my head, though, at people who repeatedly get "facelifts" so that they get a tautness of skin unnatural for their age, whatever that happens to be.) In any case, I think the implication was that having cosmetic surgery was selfish and perhaps irresponsible, and that someone who has enough money to be able to afford such expensive surgery ought to be using it for better purposes. Is it really morally deficient to want cosmetic surgery rather than donating that money to charity?

The general question, I think, is what percent of one's discretionary income (the amount above what is needed to pay for your basic needs, obligations, etc) is it acceptable to spend on oneself before it becomes wrong to do so? How is this "bracketed" - i.e., how does that percentage decrease proportional to how much more you have left, like income taxes? Once the acceptable sum has been determined, does its absolute size affect what it's acceptable to spend it on? Does it also make a difference whether you had to specially save to afford a given self-spending item, versus it being cheap relative to your income or suddenly coming into enough money (lottery, inheritance...)?

Comments

[ysidro]

The amount needed to provide acceptable living (where acceptable is determined by the individual doing said living) should be used to provide the aforementioned living. If one has dependants then the equation becomes a bit more complex, but essentially the same.

I'm not a fan of cosmetic surgery, but I'm not the one considering it. I know there's plenty of things I spend my money on that would be considered frivolous. So what? It's a cultural artifact. I may desire people to think or behave a certain way and I may tell them how I think they should behave. But I don't expect anyone to do it just because I say so. In the end, I have a hard time feeling bad for anyone who is at least taking care of their basic needs.

Short answer: spend as much as you want.

[weofodthignen]

I suspect it's a very different matter to most people when the plastic surgery/sterilization/leg-extension is paid for by the person who wants it--and when it's paid for by insurance, i.e.: shared around with everyone in the company, received free, whichever way you look at it. All sorts of health issues are warped by the way health care is/isn't paid for in the US.

I can certainly sympathize, for example, with someone who wants sterilization and can't have it because the insurance company arbitrarily refuses to pay for such elective surgery while paying amply for things they will never use and consider equally elective--such as prenatal and obstetric care. I can sympathize even more with the women who can't get birth control pills covered on their insurance, while Viagra is dispensed like candy.

It's the insurance game creating this whole issue, IMO--it sets us up for resenting what other people get.

M

[bluesidhe.livejournal.com]

All things in moderation, it's said...

There is nothing wrong with improving ones appearance if it's needed...Braces, a nose job, leg extension for dwarfism...I'll even go a bit further with cosmetic vanity like breast augmentation and smoothing out those premature wrinkles...a bit. But, too much is too much. In Argentina practically everyone has cosmetic surgery, and it has been noted how overboard they go... As far as money goes, it's ones money to do what you will, and your choice. But, if you have so much money that it's silly to keep it frivolously (i.e., Bill Gates before he was chastised for not giving some of his billions to charity)...That's really sad.

We live in such a dysfunctional society. It's okay to improve oneself, but it's not okay when one can improve oneself and give to the society, but only think like Michael Jackson in his insane misuse of vanity. That is a sickness.

All things in moderation...it's a good rule.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

The general question, I think, is what percent of one's discretionary income (the amount above what is needed to pay for your basic needs, obligations, etc) is it acceptable to spend on oneself before it becomes wrong to do so?

Ethics-wise, I don't think it is really so much what percentage of your income you're spending on "yourself" so much as to where the money goes once it has been spent.

"Frivolous" spending that ends up financially rewarding someone you deem to be "deserving" (such as buying a piece of art from an artist whom you wish to support) is ethically superior to money for food given to McDonald's, for example, in my personal schema.