Extravagance
Sin: I think we can all benefit from thinking about sin, even if we don't believe in a supreme being, even if we don't accept notions of divine punishment, of heaven and hell. The concept of sin is usually thought to be a religious concept, the deliberate violation of the will of God. I want to think of sin without religious references, with regard to a broader definition. I want to examine sin in the sense of personal failure, of the harm we can do to ourselves. In this sense, sin will still include violation of rules but not necessarily rules imposed by religion. I want to examine sin as violation of rules of good conduct, violation of rules which are designed to make our lives better. Of course sin will often include harm to others but I urge that the harm we do to others by our sinful conduct is usually exceeded by the harm we do to ourselves.
James Stalker's 1901 volume, The Seven Deadly Sins (recently compiled with his 1902 volume, The Seven Cardinal Virtues,) has formed much of my thought about sins. In preparing next week's column revisiting greed, I was reminded that I earlier committed to writing about the opposite of greed, extravagance.
We sometimes think that the opposite of a sin must be a virtue. Yet Stalker reminds us that the opposite of the sin of greed is also a sin. Greed, or avarice, is the insatiable demand for wealth for wealth's sake. Extravagance is excessive, wasteful, unnecessary or undeserved spending. That is, as the sin of greed is the accumulation of wealth for no benefit, extravagance is spending for no benefit. Extravagance is spending for the sake of spending and is also a sin.
Stalker notes that while greed is often the sin of the aged, in that the old may experience an irrational fear of poverty that evolves into greed, extravagance is often the sin of the young. The young may have no concept of money, or what it takes to acquire money, so they throw it away, waste it, for no good purpose. While extravagance is not of the same magnitude as greed, it is a sin. If nothing else, the sin of extravagance can leave us bereft of resources when we need them.
We must not confuse extravagance with spending for good purposes. When we spend for the benefit of ourselves or others, it is not extravagance (although excessive spending for these purposes may qualify). Those who have the resources are justified in spending large amounts for the benefit of themselves, their families and friends, for the benefit of the needy. Spending only crosses to extravagance when it serves no purpose other than spending itself. I accept that spending may have purposes that are invisible to onlookers. For example, many people take pleasure in helping others anonymously. Similarly, while somewhat sadly, many people spend to surround themselves with people when they believe they can't have friends in any other way. From the standpoint of those watching, money seems to melt away with no purpose but from the standpoint of the spender the money is spent purposefully and to good ends. I've concluded that, to constitute the sin of extravagance, spending must be truly wasteful, completely without purpose.
On a very practical level, a recent newspaper article on foolish financial decisions points out that many people spend lavishly to create the illusion of wealth. The article notes that big spenders may be rich but not as rich as if they hadn't spent the money extravagantly. Similarly, some people (hopefully few) seem to believe that, since the people they believe to be wealthy spend a lot, spending will lead to wealth. The logical fallacy is obvious.
Unlike many sins, the sin of extravagance is easily stopped. Stop wasting resources. Use your resources to help yourself and others. Don't impoverish yourselves, don't waste resources that could be used to help yourself and others, simply for the love of spending.
11-29-04
Home Page 2004 Archives 2003 Archives 2002 Archives 2001 Archives 2000 Archives 1999 Archives