Is this immoral?

[peter_hutson]

The whole point of such a gesture is to show everyone around you that you have so much money that the cost of the fizz is irrelevent. The higher the amount you're prepared to blow the richer you are. There might also be a correlation to how much of a **** you are, but each to their own. In the end it's his money, if it floats his boat and he had a good time, so be it. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world that think what people pay for coffee is immoral.

 

[James J]

Sounds like the cheapest international pr campaign ever tbh....

 

[R.P.L]

As some others have said, it's his money, so he can spend it how he pleases. I don't think that anyone is in a position to criticise unless they only ever spend the absolute minimum on their own needs, and give the rest to those less fortunate.

 

[peter_hutson]

I don't think that anyone is in a position to criticise unless they only ever spend the absolute minimum on their own needs, and give the rest to those less fortunate.

Which covers a majority of the population of the UK. It's amazing how little you can live on if forced to. Most of those "essentials" that people go on about, are nothing of the sort. Which is a good thing in a way, as a first world nation, our population should not have to scratch a living out of the dirt.

 

[elmarko]

I don't think that anyone is in a position to criticise unless they only ever spend the absolute minimum on their own needs, and give the rest to those less fortunate.

What a load of rubbish.

You don't have to live like Gandhi to criticise excessive wealth.

 

[randomshenans]

I think he was more pointing out that in the UK so many people live with all the "luxuries" like every console, best phones going, but haven't got a pot to urinate in. That's doing exactly the same as this guy. He's just at a higher level.

 

[peter_hutson]

What a load of rubbish.

You don't have to live like Gandhi to criticise excessive wealth.

If the foundation of your moral arguement against such wealth is death from poverty and those same people would consider your degree of wealth obscene, you certainly do need to live like Ghandi. Otherwise the arugment is hypocritical.

 

[Yas786]

Charles Shaker eh??...i actually know him, not very well but ive met him a few times. My boss is a very good close friend of his and ive had him around my house a few times for a meal. Nice guy and happy to see he is doing very well in life.

 

[elmarko]

If the foundation of your moral arguement against such wealth is death from poverty and those same people would consider your degree of wealth obscene, you certainly do need to live like Ghandi. Otherwise the arugment is hypocritical.

In your (flawed) opinion.

To suggest you have to live like Ghandi to object to excessive material wealth is simply absurd.

For example, one could easily support a position in which the entire population lives in a "reasonable standard" - instead of having many significantly above & below that line.

If I was a proponent of the aforementioned "average standard at least for all" why exactly would I suggest people to live below that standard? (to make some flawed moral point based off your false dichotomy style view on the subject).

Try thinking a little harder.

 

[PiKe]

Spending that much on a single round of champagne just makes him look like a massive bell.

If that's what he was after, then mission accomplished.

 

[Yas786]

Haters gonna hate...so ****ing what, the guy has made his millions and decides to show off a bit by buying a huge bottle of champers.

As i said i know the guy, hes pretty down to earth and seems decent so good on him for showing off a bit. As far as i know and from my meetings with him, hes not a stuck up, money pinching git like a lot of rich people can be.

More power to him and as far as im concerned, he should enjoy his money as much as possible as when hes 6ft under, he aint gonna be able to take it with him

 

[Tefal]

In your (flawed) opinion.

To suggest you have to live like Ghandi to object to excessive material wealth is simply absurd.

For example, one could easily support a position in which the entire population lives in a "reasonable standard" - instead of having many significantly above & below that line.

If I was a proponent of the aforementioned "average standard at least for all" why exactly would I suggest people to live below that standard? (to make some flawed moral point based off your false dichotomy style view on the subject).

Try thinking a little harder.

because lets take a stab that by "average standard" you mean western middle class kinda standard, or roughly where you fit in.

unfortunately that;s still far far too high for everyone to have, we're probably looking more at Indian working class for the standard,.

 

[mmj_uk]

People are just inherently greedy/selfish, what's really immoral is that in the 21st century we still have a system which allows people to starve when half of the worlds food production goes wasted.

Capitalism is pretty much a glorified cave man mentality with laws to protect the wealthy (thou shall not kill/steal etc). For the human race to survive long term we will have to adopt a more cooperative mindset at some point.

 

[elmarko]

because lets take a stab that by "average standard" you mean western middle class kinda standard, or roughly where you fit in.

unfortunately that;s still far far too high for everyone to have, we're probably looking more at Indian working class for the standard,.

Using less resources doesn't have to equal a reduced standard of living, just a different approach to resource management.

A reasonable standard can be achieved, just not in the same way we achieve it in the west (via gross material waste).

People are just inherently greedy/selfish

I disagree, we are animals who simply adapt to our surroundings.

If being selfish is rewarded in a society then that trait will develop, nature has no preference for "good" or "evil" - besides, even a form selfishness can lead to altruism (reciprocal altruism) - it just requires expanding our moral outlook further than blood/ethnic/cultural ties.

 

[R.P.L]

What a load of rubbish.

You don't have to live like Gandhi to criticise excessive wealth.

Not really. How about people who spend 40 grand on a car when a 10 grand (or less) one would suffice perfectly well? I assume that they're subject to some kind of scrutiny from the paragons of virtue in the world...

 

[peter_hutson]

In your (flawed) opinion.

To suggest you have to live like Ghandi to object to excessive material wealth is simply absurd.

For example, one could easily support a position in which the entire population lives in a "reasonable standard" - instead of having many significantly above & below that line.

If I was a proponent of the aforementioned "average standard at least for all" why exactly would I suggest people to live below that standard? (to make some flawed moral point based off your false dichotomy style view on the subject).

Try thinking a little harder.

Read what I said. I never said you need to live like Ghandi to object to excessive wealth. I said you need to live like Ghandi to object to excessive wealth on the moral grounds that that wealth could be used to save the lives of those who die due to poverty, WHEN, you yourself have excessive wealth by the standards of those dying. A very different arguement to the one you seem to have plucked fromt he sky.

We can get into the arguement of degees of immortality if you like, but it does not change the fact that a both individuals (super rich and realtively super rich) have the ability to save lives with no significant impact on themselves. As both choose not to do so, they are both are immoral. Its rather hard to build a moral argument when on the same issue you are wading through your own immorality on the same issue. Unless you don't have a problem with hypocracy? But hey, its always easier for the person with more money then yourself to pick up the tab. Seems to be a trend in this Country are moment. If each indicidual did what they can to help those around them, rather than building shaky moral arguments that others should pick up the bill - while conveniently shielding themsleves from finacial loss - the world would be a better place.

EDIT: I assume you won't be cutting your own expenditure SIGNIFICANTLY and donating money to the poor? I guess not, it's easier to rally against the rich and their immortality then focus too much on the implications of your lack of action, how financially convenient.

EDIT: Before you get your knickers in a twist, nobody means actually living like Ghandi, it's a metaphor for living life simply.

 

[DaleTheWhale]

Here's my part taking:

Immoral: No.

He had the money, he spent the money, that money will be distributed around and for all you know it will eventually go to charity. Would it be immoral to give more to a different charity that only supports 10 children, where you could have donated to a charity that supports children in Africa?

It was his money and he is entitled to do whatever he wants with it, granted it could be spent better, but then, we should all use bicycles to travel, we should use pigeons for messaging each other after-all it's immoral for us to use a £500 smart phone where a £10 does it, right?

If somebody offered me a monstrous sized Wispa bar for 300K and I was rich, would I buy it? Yes I would. I buy collectibles, does that mean I'm immoral because I could spend £30 on a game instead of £100, and give that £70 to charity.

 

[elmarko]

Read what I said. I never said you need to live like Ghandi to object to excessive wealth. I said you need to live like Ghandi to object to excessive wealth on the moral grounds that that wealth could be used to save the lives of those who die due to poverty, WHEN, you yourself have excessive wealth by the standards of those dying. A very different arguement to the one you seem to have plucked fromt he sky.

We can get into the arguement of degees of immortality if you like, but it does not change the fact that a both individuals (super rich and realtively super rich) have the ability to save lives with no significant impact on themselves. As both choose not to do so, they are both are immoral. Its rather hard to build a moral argument when on the same issue you are wading through your own immorality on the same issue. Unless you don't have a problem with hypocracy? But hey, its always easier for the person with more money then yourself to pick up the tab. Seems to be a trend in this Country are moment. If each indicidual did what they can to help those around them, rather than building shaky moral arguments that others should pick up the bill - while conveniently shielding themsleves from finacial loss - the world would be a better place.

EDIT: I assume you won't be cutting your own expenditure SIGNIFICANTLY and donating money to the poor? I guess not, it's easier to rally against the rich and their immortality then focus too much on the implications of your lack of action, how financially convenient.

EDIT: Before you get your knickers in a twist, nobody means actually living like Ghandi, it's a metaphor for living life simply.

I specifically stated what level I was referring to - my objection was based on people living well beyond what sustainable for the entire population.

You are the one who created the additional element of "relatively rich therefore equally immoral" argument.

I'm in favour of increasing the standard of living the majority, efficient resource management & decreasing the standard of living for those who use a disproportionately large amount of resources based on the carrying capacity of the earth.

Not that it's any of your business, but I do cut down my spending to contribute to various causes - don't assume everybody else is like you.

 

[peter_hutson]

I specifically stated what level I was referring to - my objection was based on people living well beyond what sustainable for the entire population.

Sorry, but I thought we were all trying to keep to the issue the OP stated. Your comment regarding Ghandi indicated that you were using that as your reference point too.

You are the one who created the additional element of "relatively rich therefore equally immoral" argument

Which is a valid counter to the OP's statement. If your going to introduce morals, then do it accross the board and don't exclude yourself.

I'm in favour of increasing the standard of living the majority, efficient resource management & decreasing the standard of living for those who use a disproportionately large amount of resources based on the carrying capacity of the earth.

As am I. My issue is the use "morals" to justify it. My concern is that the concentration of wealth in the hands of few is economically inefficient and leads to extractive political and economic institutions, that further propogate the concentration of wealth. Morals should not come in to it.

Not that it's any of your business, but I do cut down my spending to contribute to various causes - don't assume everybody else is like you.

But are you cutting down enough, how many children have died as a results of poor health care due to your desire for coffee/pc equipement ect? That's is the inevitable aruguement if you start mixing morals up into the distribution of wealth debate, which is why they should be kepy out. The thred title is very clear. If you want to change the goal posts, either be clearer or start a new thread solely focusing on wealth disparity

 

[elmarko]

Sorry, but I thought we were all trying to keep to the issue the OP stated. Your comment regarding Ghandi indicated that you were using that as your reference point too.

Fair enough, my apologies for the confusion.

Which is a valid counter to the OP's statement. If your going to introduce morals, then do it accross the board and don't exclude yourself.

I did, in that the moral baseline was around the caveat to ensure everybody lives at a reasonable standard (which means that most of the population in the west shouldn't be expected to live with nothing, just those in the developing world should be given more - at the expense of excessive material wealth).

I had to add some form of measurable criteria as without it the term 'moral' is meaningless anyway.

As am I. My issue is the use "morals" to justify it. My concern is that the concentration of wealth in the hands of few is economically inefficient and leads to extractive political and economic institutions, that further propogate the concentration of wealth. Morals should not come in to it.

I can't argue here.

But are you cutting down enough, how many children have died as a results of poor health care due to your desire for coffee/pc equipement ect? That's is the inevitable aruguement if you start mixing morals up into the distribution of wealth debate, which is why they should be kepy out. The thred title is very clear. If you want to change the goal posts, either be clearer or start a new thread solely focusing on wealth disparity

As I said in the second section, I'm not advocating individuals cutting down below what would be considered an acceptable standard (which is within the material carrying capacity of the earth) - just a great redistribution from those who are currently exceeding that level.

Besides, personal donations will only serve so much - changing political & social attitudes will do far more to further personal ethical goals than living at a level lower than I advocate for the people who's lives I believe should be improved.

To give a different example, if I was in favour of a decent standard education for all for free - why would I exclude myself from that? (just because comparatively I've got a better standard of education than many others - but still only at the 'standard level'.)