Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: The moral implications of luxury
Some years ago I attended a seminar on charitable giving in the GLBT community. The event was aimed toward affluent donors, and judging by the cars in the parking lot, it hit its target. (I drove an old Nissan at the time, and was invited strictly because of my connection with one of the charities.)
One of the speakers exhorted the crowd to forgo certain luxuries in order to make a greater charitable impact. “An inexpensive car will get you from point A to point B just as well as a BMW will,” she said, “and with the savings you can make a real difference in another person’s life.” Most attendees were nodding politely, when a mouthy acquaintance of mine stood up.“Look,” he began, “most of us had a really hard time growing up gay. We were taunted by our peers, and many of us felt alone and miserable. So now we’re enjoying some creature comforts. I worked hard to get where I am, and I’m not about to start driving a Chevy.”
I was sitting next to said mouthy acquaintance, and I sank in my chair. True, few people expected the attendees to follow the speaker’s suggestion. But it seemed obnoxious to point that out at the time.
But why? Is it selfish to want luxuries while others are in need, or merely unseemly to say so?
Luxury is a relative term, of course. If you have a car with crank windows, then power windows—which are standard equipment on most cars sold in the U.S.—may seem like a luxury. If you have to take the bus to work, having a car at all may seem like a luxury. If you live in a developing nation, buses may seem like a luxury. And so on.
Conversely, as we grow more accustomed to certain “luxuries,” they start to feel like necessities. My first car had vinyl seats—but hey, I had a car! The next one had plush fabric seats, which I thought were cool. Then I graduated to leather seats, which I thought were even cooler. Today I have HEATED leather seats, and I doubt I’m ever going back.
“But you NEED heated seats in Detroit,” my mother told me when I fretted over whether they were an extravagance. Funny, but I spent nine years here without them and managed to get around all the same.
I don’t think gays are any more prone to these tendencies than anyone else. To the extent that we fit this stereotype, it is largely because most of us don’t have children, which means that, on average, (a) we have more “disposable” income than those who do and (b) we can worry more about whether the sofa looks good, for example, than whether it will resist jam stains.
Of course, the fact that we can spend our money on things like fancy cars and fabulous sofas doesn’t mean that we should. Given the current desperate situation of many charitable organizations, the moral implications of luxury are worth pondering.
I’ll use myself as an example, just to show that I’m not trying to wag my finger at anyone else.
My partner and I recently put a new kitchen in our house. We do a lot of entertaining—including fundraising events—and most of our friends thought it was an excellent investment. I do too. I love it every day.
But meals from the old kitchen were just as nutritious and tasty.
And the old kitchen was, despite being ugly, cheap, and poorly installed, only eight years old. (It was put in by the prior owner, who “flipped” the house. It is now installed in the basement, where we use it as a backup kitchen for parties.)
And the thousands of dollars we spent on the new one could have helped people who lack not merely kitchens, but food itself.
So if I’m going to bristle at my mouthy acquaintance’s “I’m not going to drive a Chevy” comment, I had better be able to explain why I’m no longer cooking in a cheap—but perfectly serviceable—kitchen.
Ultimately, it’s because I don’t believe that moral values always trump aesthetic ones. A moral calculus would be undesirable and unsustainable if it condemned any action that could be replaced by one more virtuous.
Consider the alternative: any money you spend on an ice cream cone could go to Oxfam—so no more ice cream cones. Ditto for art, music, and dance, the absence of which is tragic but not life-threatening. That money you plan to spend on movie tickets could save a life someday.
It’s not just money at stake, but time. Every minute you spend watching TV, playing games, reading novels—or for that matter, reading this column—could be spent volunteering at the local soup kitchen.
And what about sex? Gays are hardly the only ones to engage in non-procreative sex, an activity for which we—though generally not others—get labeled as “indulgent.” But sexual intimacy, like many of these other things, is surely an ingredient of a well-lived life.
I don’t pretend to know how to strike the perfect balance—if there is one. (If you want someone that has all the answers, don’t read my column. Try Dr. Laura.)
I do know that most of us—me included—could and should give more to charity, and the arts, and other important causes. I admire those who live simply for the sake of helping others. But—I freely admit—I also admire nice cars, clothes, and kitchens.
*************************************
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears weekly on 365gay.com. Read more about him at www.johncorvino.com.
John will be a volunteer faculty member this summer for Campus Pride’s Leadership Camp for GLBT students. For more about Campus Pride’s work, or to make a donation on John’s behalf to support this year’s program, visit http://www.campuspride.org/.
Dear John-
I’m a full-time working artist and have been for more than 30 years. I took the bus for many years. I was in fact virtually starving for many years as well- though now I am decidedly not- though I do not make enough money to support myself- and am being patronized to a small degree- and am consistently trying to bring in enough money to keep me in my studio- which without I am suicidal. I despise the fact that our culture sees the arts as expendable- for they are my life-blood. Support the arts generally- and artists you know personally. And please- refrain from thinking we’re a charity. We are doing what we have to do to keep ourselves sane and we bring an enormous construct to the cultural table that would be beyond void without us being and creating and producing.
Yes charity should be advocated, but just remember, by “not” buying something, you may also be putting someone else in line who will need your charity. Case in point, all the people who make the cesna planes and lost their jobs when Congress, and the general public, made a bid stink about corporate jets. Most of those hard working men and women are now asking for government assistance to feed their families.
I agree with Jon, and I would add that maybe spending on charity vs. spending on creature comfort isn’t the right argument. Perhaps it would be better to be more considerate about the SOURCE of the luxury you buy, and spend accordingly. You can do a lot for the advancement of the world by purchasing luxury items made with environmental responsibility and a healthy respect by the manufacturer for their workforce.
You can afford heated leather seats on a philosophy professor’s salary?!
Gay and lesbian people, singles, couples, married, domestically partnered and even those with kids spend more than the average straight couple because we usually don’t have kids or as many as straights do. This is a good and a bad thing, because there are gays who get rapped up in materialism, money and “having nice things” instead of having rights or beneficial interpersonal relationships. Also, I have a strong bias on flashiness and gawdy displays of affluence. I am a Socialist so you will understand my distaste. However our economy functions on spending and gays and lesbians have been treated like sh*t for quite a while, so I am not at all upset by seeing someone who was beaten up in high school, called f*ggot in college making a 6 figure income and driving a nice car. And all these “charities” and “foundations” are just another money making scheme, that exploit the generous nature of gay people. As a socialist, I am against philanthropy in most cases because it’s fake this is why I support Socialism(big S emphasised). Do we need gay and lesbian centers? Yes. Do we need gay and lesbian health clinics, such as the Fenway and Gay Men’s Health Crisis which help everyone, but gays in particular? You bet your sweet a*s. But do we need these 501C3 non-for-profits milking the gay community of money for pet projects and to line their pockets? NO. Do we need Stonewall Democrats who are shameless appologists for the homophobic Democrats taking our money and giving it to the likes of Charlie Melançon(who’s record on gay rights would make Jesse Helms blush)? HELL NO!. Do we need the HRC or NGLTF getting all of our money and perched up in Washington endorsing candidates who’re worthless with our money? NO.
As we have seen recently, we can do just as much by withholding our money as by giving it. In this shitty economic period money talks and bullsh*t walks. If you’re going to give, do research and make sure the organization your giving to isn’t just some scheme to make tax-free money. Pay your own bills first, take care of your partners/spouses, kids and family first. Give to orgs that deliver the goods, as opposed to those(HRC, NGLTF, Stonewall Dems, LCRs) which do nothing but spend money and go to cockintheirtails parties.
They should at least call for giving up luxuries in the right way – in a way that can get attention, and effective give ‘notice’ to a company or business, that we are not happy with its practices!
Corvino: Balance is a necessary part of life. As long as you do make an effort to give time and energy (and money, if possible) no one should deny you your heated leather seats.
Bruce Wilcox: People in this world don’t get paid to make things. People in this world only get paid to make things others are willing to pay for.
The problem with art as a field is that there’s a lot of artists but not enough demand to give them all a living wage. Supply and demand doesn’t work in your favor. :\
Too much time on your hands, Corvino. Being gay ain’t a religion that has to have some kind of prescribed personal morality. It’s no one’s business, gay or straight, how anyone, gay or straight, spends their own money so long as they aren’t hurting anyone with it. Next time a gay person tells me not to eat an ice cream cone because I’m gay and should be giving that money to a pro-gay cause, I’m buying that cone and giving it to him the way they give cream pies to Ann Coulter.
Part of this issue is also where the dollars are spent. I’ve always found it so hypocritical that the gay community will vacation in all sorts of spots in Florida when it prohibits LGBT people from adopting. How can our community spend tons of money in Key West knowing that the residents of Key West are blocked from forming families. I’m all for creature comforts but we ought to at least glance at who’s benefitting from our money. What about New Orleans? Jindahl and the Republican State Senate have voted to not re-issue birth certificates to children born in La. but adopted in another state by a LGBT couple. This means the child can get a birth certificate with only one of the parent’s names on it. How mean do you have to be to deny a child a birth certificate? Why any LGBT person would vacation in such a state is beyond me.
We need very little and we want very much. For many of us, the increased disposable income from not having children allows more “luxuries”. We can do both things, give to charity and give to ourselves. The problems comes from making it a one or the other choice.
Money is like manure and it does no good unless its spread around. Both the economy and the needy can use the “manure”. Do both but do your homework before you buy OR give. make sure both give you value for your money.
and Truth Speaker, there are nearly 2 million GLBT men and women in Florida and we need the business just as well. Its our state and we’re working on making it a better place but if you boycott GLBT friendly businesses in GLBT communities, you’re not helping us, you’re hurting us and our cause. The more money we bring in to the local economy, the more power we have to change things.
I don’t need more fabulous luxuries. I have an older house dated from 1985, miscellaneous but somehow harmonious furniture combinations. A used and very ordinary minivan. My luxuries are my TVs,
DVDs and CDs.
My idea of luxury in 2009 is in how I treat others and how they treat me. A devoted, caring friend is like the finest piece of jewelry to me.
But, I do eat out on occasion. Go out to the cinema once every two months. Shop at Bed, Bath and Beyond, Best Buy, Michaels Arts and Crafts, AC Moore, and yarn shops to feed my appetite for knitting. I buy books and DVDs. I sometimes rent movies. The Sunday Post comes to my house if not for the rest of the week. My local Starbucks for that quick, tasty and nutritious sandwich when pressed for time. I believe in not wasting money, but in spreading it around from time to time on things that are not strict needs, but on things I know I want and will use. I do my own small part to help keep shops open and people enployed.
One well-off woman once said, “Money is like manure, it’s meant to be spread around”. Money sitting still does not create jobs, opportunities or goods and services.
This is not a gay issue. It is a human issue. Some in the gay community are struggling just as hard as heterosexuals. Some have families, children, low paying jobs. Ignoring the fact that many gay couples would dearly like to take on the financial burden of having a child, our sexuality of itself makes us no better or worse off financially than anyone else.
As this is not a gay issue, it is normally not a subject on which I would comment on this site, but I do feel the need in this case because, rather remarkably, on the whole I find myself agreeing with you. Those who are privileged to have a disposable income, gay, straight or otherwise, do have to consider the moral dilemma of using that money to improve the quality of their own lives or use it to improve the quality of lives for others. For most of us, that is a hard balance to find.
For me, I automatically set aside ten percent of my income for good causes and give as much time as I can spare to work for the three charities I personally support. But is this charitable giving any less a luxury than a nice car, nice house or pretty things? For me it helps assuage the guilt I feel when I see so many people far worse off than myself. In that sense, perhaps the relief of guilt can be seen as being as extravagant as your heated seats – ultimately they both make us feel more comfortable.
Each individual needs to find the right balance for themselves, and it is not for me or anyone else to judge what is right or wrong when it comes to charitable giving.
Ah, Corvino is dancing around some formulation of the repugnant conclusion. Go look that up if you’re unaware of it.
I really think that we need to scale back, though, and revise what we mean by the good life as it is currently understood. And thus, I think we the repugnant conclusion goes away and your aesthetic concerns…are no more.
Morgan Said:
“I have an older house dated from 1985″
I’m sorry, but I had to laugh at this, especially seeing as I went with two good friends of mine to view a house they were thinking of buying in the Scottish Highlands just yesterday. I consider my place in New York old as it was built in the 1920s. We were looking for the property and had to ask a local where it was. He said it was “one of the newer houses on the far side of the village”. The house was built in 1740.
Completely off topic, so I apologise.