I agree this thing is so illogical.
How Middle Class is the only acceptable and right way - rich extravagant or luxurious people are being bad. Because they have things they don't need.
But if they are bad, then the middle class is bad too.
Because the middle class buy things they don't need.
Why did they buy a TV when they could have given that money to charity?
Why did they buy those fancy plates or fancy shoes when they could have bought the bare minimum and no frills of everything and given the money to charity instead?
Why purchase carpet when you could just have a concrete floor and that money could have been given to poor people?
Why? Why?
Everyone who buys something fancy they don't need that is not the bare essentials of survival - we are all basically guilty of excess extravagance!!
What's right and what's wrong here? I guess I am immoral
How do you justify buying a ticket to the movies and buying nice eat out food instead of just rice and vegetables and no special entertainment when there are poor people starving on the verge of death? What do we do - what is right?
How Bare and Essential of living while only giving the excess to lift others out of poverty assures our morality and ethicalness?
I want everyone to live as extravagantly and luxuriously as possible, but now I am concerned about just what is moral to others in need!!
Or do you do it this way, allow yourself to live extravagantly and have wealth, and then teach others how to be wealthy too?
But then just one person on the verge of death from hunger is so significant and matters.
How much helping and giving is right moral and ethical? I guess enough so that we are healthy?
I guess I mean, everything you own and have and have purchased that was unecessary to basic survival, what if the money spent on that could have saved someones life?