— By Andy Gustafson

If you saw the recent headline “Man Builds $80,000 beer fort at Vegas nightclub” you may have looked twice– a young man who obviously had money to spend extravagantly bought 400 cases of beer to build a ‘fort’ around he and his friends at a nightclub in Vegas.  Is there an ethical question here?

Our American psyche tends to believe that a person is free to do with their hard-earned money whatever they want (providing that it is legal).  Who is anyone else to say how someone should or shouldn’t spend their money?  And as true as it is that one is free to spend one’s money however one wants, that overlooks a fairly basic question of ethics– is it a good use of money?

Its obvious that we could all live simpler lives than we do– and pushed to an extreme we could all shop for everything at goodwill, live together communally in smaller houses or on farms in sod huts riding horses and living off the land– and the economy would collapse.  But to raise the question of whether or not some things are excessive or extravagant– perhaps even unethical– is not to suggest subsistence farming for all.

In many forms of Christian thought, there is a notion of good-goods: quality goods which are useful and beneficial for people.   As Christians– as stewards of God’s creation and as co-creators of artifacts in the world– it is thought that we should work towards creating good goods, not not-good-goods.  Its part of living in the image of the Creator, to do things well, and to create good things.   This is of special importance for those of us in business.  It is a bad witness of our faith to provide bad goods.

Not so good goods could include shoddily made products, products which are harmful or just useless, or goods which are frivolous.  Of course there is some personal judgment in these decisions, but there are other things which it is likely could be candidates for not being good goods among the majority of people. $80,000 beer forts (particularly when most of that beer remained unopened) seems to be a likely candidate.

And then there are goods which may be seen to have very little good to offer: Abercrombie and Fitch recently had a new line of pre-teen underwear (for 8-11 year old girls) which said “eye candy” on it– which again, seems to be a likely candidate for ‘not-good-good’, since its hard to imagine a context in which that would be appropriate.  Also, its hard to see how cigarettes could be a good good (perhaps someone would make argument for occasional cigars– I don’t know and am not tempted).  Casino gambling would be on some people’s list, while others would find it enjoyable.  And then there are all kinds of foods which are quite unhealthy for a person– 3,000 calorie meals at restaraunts, foods with no nutritional value, etc.  And then there are apparently frivolous extravagant things like beer forts, $500,000 cars or watches, and mansions which are much bigger than anyone could possibly utilize.

Good goods is a controversial concept, because what seems acceptable to one person may seem obviously not-good to another.   Goodness of the good is its usefulness, its value or benefit, its quality, and its sustainability.  And producing not-good-goods is one things, but consuming them is yet another. On the consumer side, there is also an argument to be made that we ought not to be wasting money on bad goods– especially on frivolous extravagant things.  But this gets us into even more difficult territory.  Is a $15 hamburger extravagant?  Is a $45 steak extravagant?  Must everything I put in my body have nutritional value, and is it a sin for me to eat chocolate cream pie, liqour and– most controversial of all no doubt– bacon??  (I had you until bacon, didn’t I?) …

But again, there are extremes which most people can probably agree on– like $80,000 beer forts…

Bibliography:

On the Nature of Good Goods and the Ethical Role of Marketing (Santos and Laczniak)

Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire (Cavanaugh)