Explain me why living in luxury is wrong?

[hemybel]

Will anyone tell me why living in luxury is wrong to you guys? I want to hear your opinion on this matter

[Tormented by Treachery]

My personal qualm with it is that to be wealthy in a capitalist society means that you have amassed the profit of the working class' labor, thus you've robbed them repeatedly and stealthily to the point where you are able to live in comfort while many of them die each day due to hunger, lack of medical care, thirst, etc. To live in luxury also implies the use of wealth to only increase opulence, again, while as the laborers (whose labors have been robbed from them and turned into capital for you) die and live in poverty, obviously needing the money more than the wealthy need it for a Lexus or such.

[commiecrusader]

I wouldn't have anything against living in luxury, if everyone in the world was. As it is, it is impossible for everyone to live in luxury in a capitalist society, since there is a finite amount of wealth, and you need wealth to live in luxury.

[Roses in the Hospital]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong about living in luxury, but, when compared to the quality of life of the world's poor, it is clearly unacceptable...

[LSD]

Will anyone tell me why living in luxury is wrong to you guys?

It isn't.

Forcing others to live in poverty is.

[Tormented by Treachery]

An amendment to my post: I want to make sure it is known that I am talking about in a capitalist society where there are the filthy rich. If all 6.3 billion people lived in luxury, there would be nothing wrong.

[Zero]

Anyone who can live in luxury, while there are people in your own country who are digging through a dumpster to survive doesn't deserve to have that luxury.

[Lamanov]

It's not. Depriving those who produce it is.

[cbm989]

because people here have a basic concern for the human race and other people on this planet. the people here are not greedy ass holes. its my personal belief that greed is the root of just about every problem

[Floyce White]

hemybel: "Will anyone tell me why living in luxury is wrong to you guys? I want to hear your opinion on this matter."

The source of all knowledge is the practice of the common folk. They do not live in luxury. When you are divorced from the life of the poor, you are divorced from learning. Living in luxury is wrong if you want to know anything more than you do now.

[La Comédie Noire]

The more you have...the more people had to work to make it, so if you live in luxury you have surrounded yourself with the products of toil and pain. In todays Society, a Capitalist Society, It Is Impossible to live In Luxury without exploiting others. So thats the problem with Luxury.

[gilhyle]

WHile Marx and Engels are not necessarily moral guides, Engels, notably had no objection to living in luxury (and he did) and Marx, when asked how he could justify speculating on the bond market (as he had done) simply answered that there was nothing wrong in him appropriating (I paraphrase) some of the profits of capilism

[voice of the voiceless]

Marx was incredibly poor towards the end of his life and lived in The direst of poverty in England. Three of his children died because he couldnt afford a doctor.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 05:44 AM
Will anyone tell me why living in luxury is wrong to you guys? I want to hear your opinion on this matter
"Luxury" doesn't grow on trees.

It comes from people....people who know how to make the luxury but don't have enough money to buy them.

[hemybel]

Originally posted by Tormented by [email protected] 31 2006, 07:02 AM
My personal qualm with it is that to be wealthy in a capitalist society means that you have amassed the profit of the working class' labor, thus you've robbed them repeatedly and stealthily to the point where you are able to live in comfort while many of them die each day due to hunger, lack of medical care, thirst, etc. To live in luxury also implies the use of wealth to only increase opulence, again, while as the laborers (whose labors have been robbed from them and turned into capital for you) die and live in poverty, obviously needing the money more than the wealthy need it for a Lexus or such.
very nice answer! yup... i always think of africa and other third world countries especiall the philippines... there's so many people dying starving... while others wastes a little money for coffee... whatever... they can buy 1 kilo of bread for a 1 cup of coffee... i don't know.... did you ever try feeding someone who is really hungry? I did... i saw their eyes... it saddened me....

[( R )evolution]

As everyone in these forums have explained to you living in luxury is not wrong but through the explotion of others is not right. Also, I have feed poor and starving people and it brings me closer to reality than anything else.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Machiavelli [email protected] 3 2006, 03:56 AM
As everyone in these forums have explained to you living in luxury is not wrong but through the explotion of others is not right. Also, I have feed poor and starving people and it brings me closer to reality than anything else.
It would be nice if the distinction you draw was feasible, but in reality all luxury in this society derives from the exploitation of others. Indeed even sustenance in poverty more often than not relies on the exploitation of others.

[STI]

I don't find anything particularily "wrong" about capitalism or the amassing of wealth. The issue is not a moral one, but one of self-interest. As a member of the working class, I'm exploited and dehumanized in capitalism, and I don't like that. It pisses me off. I have only to gain by overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with a classless society, and so I'm a communist.

[FidelCastro]

it all depends on the circumstances surrounding your life in luxury. If you win the lotto, you really aren't exploiting anyone so therefore it really isn't wrong. If you save your money by doing hard work to the point of being rich then that isn't wrong either. If you make others work extremely hard so you can gain more money then that is wrong.

[Abood]

living in luxury is wrong when there are people who are homeless or have much worse homes. i live in a pretty luxurious house and i feel guilty n that we should give some away. if u gain loads of money u should give it away, or save it for a revolutionary fund.

[Pandii]

Luxury: Something expensive or hard to obtain.

Hence.. something that most of the population (yes most, as most are in the working class) of any nation, cannot obtain due to poor quality of life, EVEN if they are surrounded by weath. Poor people work in rich nations, and their existance is calling 'living' there too. Yet, day after day poorer communities are slapped in the face, losing out due to over-time and under-pay.

Luxury is wrong in a capitalist society where luxury is gained by creating a soiety that "has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment'."

:angry: Damn capitalistic pigs

[Led Zeppelin]

Living in excessive luxury is wrong because the vast majority of people don't live in excessive luxury.

So most likely you are a member of the bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie if you live that way.

[Xian]

I think that "luxury" is only luxury because it is rare, which means that if everyone lived in what we now refer to as luxury, it would not be luxurious anymore because everyone would have it. It would be standard.

So luxury is wrong in that it has no peak, so there will be people who will experience wealth and always think about more wealth.
For example, there was an episode of "Frasier" where Niles and Frasier were granted access to the "Gold Door" room at their spa, and from there there was a "Platinum Door," and then after getting through that one, there was another door, and it turned out that it was the way out to the back alley! :lol: :lol: Their greed ruined them.

The major philosophy of Buddhism is that desire brings us suffering, which is true in that having things will just make us want more and more. For example, having a nice car, and thinking to yourself that it's nice, means that you have set it apart from other cars that are worse. You make a comparison. In the same way, you compare it to cars that are better than it, and your desire will turn into one for that better car. And there is no end, just like Frasier's "Doors."

So with socialism, not only are you equating all the peoples of a society, but you are freeing them from the desire that they (in capitalism) think they can't go without. So even in socialism, luxury, or anything more than what you need to make you happy (which is not much, even though it may appear to be) would be harmful overall.
~peace~