![[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...)?
no subject
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.