Ethics

Is it ethical to live a lifestyle of luxury when that lifestyle relies on exploitation and unjust inequalities?

Comments

Given that ex hypothesi, the life of luxury in question "relies on exploitation and unjust inequalities," it seems straightforwardly to be wrong to live such a life. For surely it is morally wrong to profit from inequalities that one recognizes to be unjust. If one were to modify the question, so that what was at issue was a life that relied on inequalities and exploitation, then the question would become more complicated: one would need to determine the nature of the inequalities in question, whether one's lifestyle itself contributed to perpetuating them, whether one could, by changing one's lifestyle, change them, and also to clarify the nature of the exploitation in question, to determine, for example, whether the 'exploitation' is, for example, a matter of differences, say, in the wages paid to and the working conditions of factory workers in China as opposed to those of factory workers in the United States. If one were to take up such issues then one would, I think, be engaging issues at the heart of Rawls's Theory of Justice, and which have been discussed in work in political philosophy that has arisen in response to A Theory of Justice (as well, of course, in work in political philosophy preceding A Theory of Justice).

Depending on the nature of the inequalities and exploitation, a case could be made on either side, I think. Ultimately, however, I think that resolution of the issue depends largely on the extent to which one thinks that global social and other institutions should manifest principles of fairness and equity. Depending on the extent of one's commitment to this idea, one might be led all the way to a Marxist perspective, according to which--at least so it seems to me--it would be unjust, everywhere and always, for such inequalities and conditions to persist, and, hence, according to which one should do whatever is in one's power to alleviate them, maybe as much as promoting a wholesale restructuring of these conditions through revolutionary action.

I suppose you could go the "it depends on what you mean by ethical route", but I would prefer a simple - of course not. And yet over the course of American history the robber barons and hall of fame exploiters inevitably become major philanthropists. They destroy lives to build their fortunes and then are pinned with medals for endowing universities and founding museums. But the virtuoso of money making who uses others to fill his or her coffers is not a morally virtuous individual, even when they have streets and buildings named in their honor.

Read another response by Sean Greenberg, Gordon Marino

Read another response about Ethics