A Fallacious Argument

[Afterswift@aol.com]

<<I make some of my images in third world countries. As I already mentioned
in
an earlier message, our Leicas are 'worth' more money than the majority of
human beings would ever earn their whole life. A farmer in India, for
instance, would at least have to work for ten years to earn what we paid for
an M6. In this perspective the fundamental idea, Needs vs Wants, also
becomes a moral one. --Oddmund>>

Oddmund,

Of course one can transmute a Leica or a Toyota into dollars that represent
the fulfillment of a need to someone in the Third world. The same could be
said of a great virtuoso's Strad. But that rationale begs the question of the
relationship between a need and a want. 

Both the virtuoso and the Indian farmer have needs: one for the violin, the
other for the selling price of the violin. When you sold your Leica equipment
I assume the proceeds didn't go to feed that Indian farmer. Or did you send
him that money? I don't think you did. You probably used it to buy other
equipment or put it in your bank account for your own use.

So the money represented by the Leica or the Strad would never reach the poor
in material need in any case. But in the hands of the artists who own them
they could satisfy the needs of the poor or deprived in spirit. Therefore the
moral imperative remains tho the analogy you make is fallacious.

Had you said that if a playboy bought some expensive trinket for $100K, like
a custom yacht, then your analogy has some validity. That money was a waste.
It could have been used to alleviate the plight of those Indian farmers by
paying for medical facilities and marketing transportation, etc. What has the
Leica in the hands of a skilled photographer got to do with that Indian
farmer? What has the Strad in the hands of Perlman got to do with that Indian
farmer? Zubin Meta would consider you quixotic, to say the least -- and he's
a countryman of that Indian farmer. 

In no way is the money paid for a Leica by a photographer a moral compromise.
The only moral consideration that would apply is that it would be a sin if a
first rate talented photographer who needs that instrument would be deprived
of a Leica because he couldn't afford it. That would be like denying a
stethoscope to an excellent physician. Those acts would be immoral. This
linking of the pecuniary value of professional instruments to the needs of
poor folk is absurd. 

If you were to dwell on the immorality of the $billions one hears that
self-indulgent damned fools all over the world spend on illegal drugs, to
equate it with the poverty of that Indian farmer, then the analogy holds.
Those transactions have a relationship between a need and a want in the moral
sense.

Oddmund, you've got a good heart. But also use your head. I know you have a
fine mind as well. It is well that you sold that Leica. Another photographer
needed it. 

Bob R