![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There was a post in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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...)?
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...)?
