There's So Much Down Here. Let Me Tell You.

It is hard to discuss without a common definition of what a luxury is. For example, is Dan's room air conditioner a luxury? Us electricity a luxury? Two hundred years ago, these things certainly would have been considered luxorious. Likewise, indoor plumbing.

Is one person's luxury is another person's necessity?

I suppose we could agree that "conspicuous consumption" (Veblen's phrase) is fundamentally immoral. But that may be clear to most people only at the extremes.

How about this formulation: To the extent one uses one's money to purchase things that are not necessities (however one defines that), there is a corresponding responsbility to do things (whether by direct action or monetary contributions) that add to the common weal. It would be hard to quantify, but at least it is a framework within which to try to live morally.

Dan's Dad has it right. And extra props for namechecking Thorstein. "Luxury" and "necessity" are moving targets, constructed by technological advances, environmental constraints, social consensus (aka 'fashion' or, in weightier terms, 'morality'), and individual ethics. "Conscience" means, more or less, applying awareness, reason, and some ethic beyond immediate self-interested desire to decision-making: the examined life. In my world, diamonds are not an ethical purchase, whether they come from conflict zones or Canadian mega-corporations. But then, I'm a raving socialist trouble-maker, so you have to aim off a bit for that.

Regarding my dad's idea that, for every act of unnecessary consumption, one should make a corresponding positive contribution to the world...

I agree, except for the word "corresponding." I would substitute "greater," since we should be making those smaller contributions regardless.

As for Ed's comment (HI ED!)... does the socially constructed nature of those concepts push them outside the boundaries of a more objective judgment? (I know, I know, I said "objective" - it makes ME wanna barf too.) Technological advancement may change our perception of luxury, but, considering the gravity of suffering in the world, shouldn't we disregard those perceptions in favor of a more spartan definition?

I mean, I know we DON'T. I know we probably WON'T, but wouldn't it technically be the right thing to do?