Your suggestion that the purchase of a sports car is immoral gets nothing more than an eye roll. So move along and feel superior.

It's not clear to me what you're looking for in a new car. Is it a real issue that it's just a 2-seater? If not, I like the Honda S2000. Very rigid frame, handles well. I think it has a more sophisticated look than the Camaro ZI1. But that's taste.



Cars have a lot of tax in the Netherlands so it's difficult for me to accurately gauge what would be affordable. If you're looking for something you can move the family in, I'd love the Porsche Panamera. I'd suspect a second hand could fit in your budget in the US.

Meanwhile, I drive a black Skoda Combi...

Your suggestion that the purchase of a sports car is immoral gets nothing more than an eye roll. So move along and feel superior. — Hanover

Are you seriously suggesting there's no moral component to purchasing decisions? Have you even read any modern ethicists? Peter Singer, John McMurty, Iris Young all have written extensively about the ethics of purchasing.

I can't believe on a forum supposedly about philosophy (even a tangential sub-forum) I'm having to defend myself for bringing ethics into a discussion about sports cars.

Or maybe you've read all those eminent ethicists and have concluded in your wisdom that they're all wrong and there's no ethical dimension to purchasing, in which case 'move along and feel superior'.

What I'm saying is that all purchasing decisions involve consumption and most purchasing decisions are not out of necessity. If I buy a dog, the chain of consumption from my having to work for the money to buy him, to buying a car to transport him to the vet, to buying him food that had to be processed somewhere, to having a vet treat him that had to be trained somewhere, and on and on and on. So, unless we limit ourselves to the truly necessary, we could not justify any other purchase. And why are you typing on your computer? You don't need it and the amount of industrial waste expended making it is destroying my planet.

I don't know if you're being deliberately polemic, but I don't understand your argument at all. You seem to be saying that because all our purchasing choices involve some degree of unnecessary resource use we should abandon all attempts to limit their impact. All wars kill people so should be we abandon any attempt to minimise wars? All our actions have impacts, no matter how small. Moral consideration is about minimising those impacts, we don't abandon the project just because we can't eliminate them altogether.

As to me, the computer is second hand, it's powered by electricity from renewable sources and purchased from my earnings which I maintain at or below the global average. I'm not an idiot, I'm not going to pronounce on other people's morality without first having attended to my own.

I don't know if you're being deliberately polemic, but I don't understand your argument at all. You seem to be saying that because all our purchasing choices involve some degree of unnecessary resource use we should abandon all attempts to limit their impact. All wars kill people so should be we abandon any attempt to minimise wars? All our actions have impacts, no matter how small. Moral consideration is about minimising those impacts, we don't abandon the project just because we can't eliminate them altogether. — Pseudonym

I'm saying that the purchase and use of a sports car is within the acceptable limits of resource use as is your use of your computer. If Sam didn't buy that sports car and if no one bought sports cars we'd be no better off. In fact, it's not even clear that electric cars are any better for the environment than gas powered ones. And what we have here is a sidetracking of a conversation where Sam wanted advice on the best car to get and you decided a good lecture was in order.

As to me, the computer is second hand, it's powered by electricity from renewable sources and purchased from my earnings which I maintain at or below the global average. — Pseudonym

I doubt the average person globally owns a computer. While you might feel your resources are limited compared to those closest to you, the truth is that you're fabulously wealthy, with your carbon footprint greatly exceeding the Congolese. It's disgusting really how you flaunt your wealth and burn the resources that the bushmen would never think to destroy.

I wanted you to note that in my recent post to Pseudonym, I said "the truth is that you're fabulously wealthy, with your carbon footprint greatly exceeding the Congolese."

I'm saying that the purchase and use of a sports car is within the acceptable limits of resource use — Hanover

By what standards? Many well respected ethicists and even quite a few economists would disagree with you. You can't have a concept of 'acceptable resource use' without 'unacceptable resource use' so what would be unacceptable and why?

what we have here is a sidetracking of a conversation where Sam wanted advice on the best car to get and you decided a good lecture was in order. — Hanover

If Sam wanted advice on the best car he'd have asked on a sports car forum. Unless he's a complete idiot he'd have known he was asking a community of philosophers. Presumably the idea that at least one of them might be an ethicist had crossed his mind, also presumably (unless he's been living in a box for the last 30years and the entire environmental movement has gone unnoticed) the idea that at least one of these ethicists might have responded to his query as to which car to buy with the answer "none of them". If he honestly expected an uncritical conversation about the merits of different sports cars from a community of philosophers I can only imagine he's never met a philosopher.

While you might feel your resources are limited compared to those closest to you, the truth is that you're fabulously wealthy, with your carbon footprint greatly exceeding the Congolese. It's disgusting really how you flaunt your wealth and burn the resources that the bushmen would never think to destroy. — Hanover

As I said, I'm not an idiot I'm hardly going to start critiquing other people's morality without ensuring I've met those standards myself. You may not agree with my ethics and I'd be glad to have a discussion with you about them, but I am a strict egalitarian. As Parfait points out, we cannot just keep giving all the while there exists someone less well off than ourselves otherwise we will end up in a perpetual cycle of giving. We would eventually end up the one who was worst off, someone would have to give to use, who would then be the worst off, and so on.

Parfit, and dozens of ethicists after him, recognised that the only logical way out of this is to focus not on relative poverty, but on equality. That's why I ensure my income (and therefore expenditure) is no greater than the average (in price equivalent dollars, according to the World Bank figures). That way I'm not using more than my fair share of the world's resources as measured by their economic value. To go any further would enter Parfit's cycle of giving.

Its not perfect, and there are many other considerations, but its a damn sight more arguable a position than just throwing your hands in the air and saying we might as well do what we like.

I doubt the average person globally owns a computer. — Hanover

Apparently the average person is a 28 year old Han Chinese man, is right-handed, makes less than $12,000 per year, and has a mobile phone but no bank account. It doesn't say, but I suspect he owns a computer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362709/Typical-human-face-28-year-old-Chinese-man.html

Edit: Although it looks like it uses the mode rather than the mean.

In fact, it's not even clear that electric cars are any better for the environment than gas powered ones. — Hanover

Cradle-to-grave, electric cars are better for the environment in most places in the world depending on the power plant generating the electricity and further improving due to development in battery efficiency.

By what standards? Many well respected ethicists and even quite a few economists would disagree with you. You can't have a concept of 'acceptable resource use' without 'unacceptable resource use' so what would be unacceptable and why? — Pseudonym

Any standard is going to be arbitrary. What I'll say is that Sam's car purchase will have no measurable impact on anyone.

If he honestly expected an uncritical conversation about the merits of different sports cars from a community of philosophers I can only imagine he's never met a philosopher. — Pseudonym

I do think the conversation is off point, and whether one should expect an off point conversation with a philosopher I guess depends on the philosopher. It's like the annoying guy at the Thanksgiving table who insists he can't give thanks while others suffer.

As I said, I'm not an idiot I'm hardly going to start critiquing other people's morality without ensuring I've met those standards myself. — Pseudonym

If you didn't adhere to the standards you set, you'd be a hypocrite, not an idiot, and just because you might be hypocritical wouldn't make you wrong.

As Parfait points out, we cannot just keep giving all the while there exists someone less well off than ourselves otherwise we will end up in a perpetual cycle of giving. We would eventually end up the one who was worst off, someone would have to give to use, who would then be the worst off, and so on.

Parfit, and dozens of ethicists after him, recognised that the only logical way out of this is to focus not on relative poverty, but on equality. That's why I ensure my income (and therefore expenditure) is no greater than the average (in price equivalent dollars, according to the World Bank figures). That way I'm not using more than my fair share of the world's resources as measured by their economic value. To go any further would enter Parfit's cycle of giving. — Pseudonym

That solution is illogical if the goal is the eradication of poverty. The cure for poverty is wealth, which would mean that if you made more money, you could give more money, which is precisely why the US provides so much charity to the rest of the world. I guess if you want to give until you've reduced your wealth to the average wealth of the community, you could, but that'd be an arbitrary point to stop giving. Some might give until they're completely impoverished, which would be fine if that's what they wanted to do. At any rate, if I'm looking for securing financial help for the poor, I'd be likely to turn to those who've not artificially limited their income to that of the mean, but I'd look for those with more expendable wealth. I also find it hard to follow how you limit your income. Do you refuse raises or take jobs that don't fully take advantage of your talents so that you can keep yourself making less?

But what I really think, in terms of the OP, is that Sam ought to buy the fastest, coolest car he can reasonably afford and he can let his gray hair fly around as he accelerates from 0-60 in 4 seconds.

Apparently the average person is a 28 year old Han Chinese man, is right-handed, makes less than $12,000 per year, and has a mobile phone but no bank account. It doesn't say, but I suspect he owns a computer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362709/Typical-human-face-28-year-old-Chinese-man.html

Edit: Although it looks like it uses the mode rather than the mean. — Michael

To be in the upper 1% of income globally, you'd need to make $34,000 per year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-need-34k-income-global-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html

38% of the households in the world own a computer. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/03/19/internet-seen-as-positive-influence-on-education-but-negative-influence-on-morality-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/technology-report-15/

Cradle-to-grave, electric cars are better for the environment in most places in the world depending on the power plant generating the electricity and further improving due to development in battery efficiency. — Benkei

It does seem to depend on a number of factors, including the power plant, but also on the manufacturing process and battery disposal issues. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/lambilliotte2/

38% of the households in the world own a computer. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/03/19/internet-seen-as-positive-influence-on-education-but-negative-influence-on-morality-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/technology-report-15/ — Hanover

That's the median, not the mean. Also, it only counts 32 countries, explicitly excluding the U.S. Notably it doesn't include Western Europe.

To be in the upper 1% of income globally, you'd need to make $34,000 per year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-need-34k-income-global-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html — Hanover

Not sure what the 1% has to do with it. You don't need to be in the 1% to afford a computer.

Brilliant, I didn't think philosophy was that easy... All those wasted years. All right here goes.

I do think Sam's car purchase would have a measurable impact.
I think if you were hypocritical that would make you wrong.
I think egalitarianism as a solution to poverty is logical.
I don't think the cure for poverty is for the wealthy to get more wealthy.
I think an egalitarian stopping point isn't arbitrary.
I don't think it would be fine if people gave until they were completely impoverished I think it would be silly.
(I don't refuse work, I give my excess to charity, usually Survival International, to help those Congolese bushman you're so fond of)
And I think Sam shouldn't buy another car.

You're right it's so much easier without having to bother presenting any logical arguments.

Brilliant, I didn't think philosophy was that easy... All those wasted years. All right here goes.

I do think Sam's car purchase would have a measurable impact.
I think if you were hypocritical that would make you wrong.
I think egalitarianism as a solution to poverty is logical.
I don't think the cure for poverty is for the wealthy to get more wealthy.
I think an egalitarian stopping point isn't arbitrary.
I don't think it would be fine if people gave until they were completely impoverished I think it would be silly.
(I don't refuse work, I give my excess to charity, usually Survival International, to help those Congolese bushman you're so fond of)
And I think Sam shouldn't buy another car.

You're right it's so much easier without having to bother presenting any logical arguments. — Pseudonym

You act as if your assertions have some firmer basis than mine. But let's go through these.

1. What is the measurement of Sam's vehicle purchase. How much more carbon emissions do you expect and what impact do you think it will have?
2. It is a logical fallacy to attack the speaker's hypocrisy as a basis that their position is incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
3. Granting everyone equal rights (egalitarianism) will not eliminate poverty. Not everyone owes their poverty to not having equal rights.
4. This is a strawman. I didn't say allowing the wealthy the ability to get wealthier would cure poverty. I presented the tautology that poverty is cured with wealth.
5. An egalitarian stopping point is how you intend to define when you should stop giving, suggesting that when you've reached the arbitrary mean, you've given enough. I'm not judging your generosity, but I see that as no more or less arbitrary than tithing 10%.
6. Some people do give to the point of poverty, with some taking a vow of poverty. That you think it's silly isn't based upon any philosophical basis. It's just you disagree. I have no problem with people giving whatever they want.
7. I don't care how you give, but it's good you do.

I don't care if Sam buys another car, but I do think he should do what he wants.

from your article:

We can fairly conclude that whether or not buying an EV is an environmentally friendly decision depends on where you are in the world, and how sustainable power is there.

Which is basically what I said. Y u replyin' as if u disagreein'? Eh?

@Sam26 get the second hand panamera. :D

1. What is the measurement of Sam's vehicle purchase. How much more carbon emissions do you expect and what impact do you think it will have? — Hanover

The actual quantity is irrelevant, its going to be more than zero which is what it would be if he didn't buy the car, plus £50,000 at least could certainly be better spent. Clean water for 5,000 children for a start. I don't know what moral system you're using which makes that 'little impact'.

2. It is a logical fallacy to attack the speaker's hypocrisy as a basis that their position is incorrect. — Hanover

I didn't attack your moral position on the basis of hypocrisy, I attacked hypocrisy. In consistency is shown to be one of the most consistent trait people associate with negative behaviour trust values.

3. Granting everyone equal rights (egalitarianism) will not eliminate poverty. Not everyone owes their poverty to not having equal rights. — Hanover

Egalitarianism, by definition, means that everyone is equal (by whatever metric). Poverty is a relative term so by simple logic, if everyone had equal wealth no-one would be poor.

4. This is a strawman. I didn't say allowing the wealthy the ability to get wealthier would cure poverty. I presented the tautology that poverty is cured with wealth. — Hanover

How? Poverty is cured by redistributing wealth in some way. I cannot see any logic whereby simple wealth alone can reduce poverty, it has to somehow make it into the hands of the poor. As we have plenty of wealth to go round already, how is making more going to help?

5. An egalitarian stopping point is how you intend to define when you should stop giving, suggesting that when you've reached the arbitrary mean, you've given enough. I'm not judging your generosity, but I see that as no more or less arbitrary than tithing 10%. — Hanover

Its not arbitrary because its the point at which you no longer become both the benefactor and the entitled. A dichotomy that makes no logical sense.

6. Some people do give to the point of poverty, with some taking a vow of poverty. That you think it's silly isn't based upon any philosophical basis. It's just you disagree. I have no problem with people giving whatever they want. — Hanover

See above

7. I don't care how you give, but it's good you do. — Hanover

This is fashionable equivocation. If it's good that I give, then it's bad that others do not. How can it possibly be 'good' that I give my excess wealth to charity, but also 'good' that others spend theirs on personal luxuries. What definition of 'good' covers both those actions?

Good god, I just wanted to talk sports cars. If you want to talk ethics, start up a thread on the ethics of sports cars. I was using this thread to escape some of the philosophy for a minute.

What can I say, I just like sports cars, always have. Some people like large homes, I could care less about having a large home. By the way, my body is full of tattoos. I have one of Wittgenstein on my chest. :-} I'm not into fancy clothes, not into having expensive watches, I just like sports cars. Can't I have one vice, please? I'm not rich, nor am I married, I just have a little extra money to spend. Why not have a little fun. Beside I'm 67, who knows how much time I have left. — Sam26

Damnation. Wittgenstein on your chest? I say, but I hope you don't have "get it here" on your lower abdomen... in Latin.

Nevertheless, I approve of your vice, I love the idea of tinkering away restoring classic cars. I brought my first car the day I turned 18 and it was a beaten-up, rusty 1983 model Toyota Cressida in brown for $800 that I saved working at KFC while studying in high school - mind you, I was earning $4.50 hr and I was paying rent at the same time - and it was pure freedom for me or at least it represented that; it really allowed me to understand why the freedom of movement is paramount to self-determination. It was an old car, but it was the only car I could afford and it remains the best thing I ever had. And anyway, the engine was powerful enough for me to escape the late-night attention from guys in their cars compelled by my girlfriends who would flirtatiously taunt them, those days straight out of high school where we embraced the entropy of existence. :D

I don't even drive that fast, at most I'll drive 150 in a 30 mph school zone, but that's it; and I do it on Sundays while texting. — Sam26

To be perfectly honest, there is no point getting a sportscar if you are not going to drive it fast and that is why it is really silly to buy one if you live in the suburbs. I would recommend getting something sophisticated, slightly luxurious but nevertheless economical that you can enjoy and maybe just hire a sports car in Germany and speed in designated areas around Europe.

Ya, if you've ever been in an accident that will cure you of sports cars. I've seen some bad accidents, but was never involved in one. My best friend, who loved sports cars, always said he would die before he was 21, but that if he died he wanted to die in his car. Well, he wasn't in it, but under it, it fell on him. He was 20 when he died. I was in Marines at the time, just left Vietnam, when I got the news. It's a crazy world, I go to Vietnam and survive, he dies under his car in his driveway. — Sam26

I am very conscious of how I drive and I prefer to drive manual so I can be more in control and I never had an accident until this really terrible driver caused the collision (it was not my fault). It really shocked me more then I thought an experience like that would and shaped how I understand cars, which is why safety is a big priority for me now. I did drive fast, but I was sensible and knew where and how to drive at the right time. Despite that, I am still fond of sportscars but not for everyday use because the utility of it seems absurd; more for the respect to the mechanics and horsepower and aesthetics, but not for actual driving. If I had any money, I would prefer to purchase with safety my top priority, before value and economy and then luxury, but alas.

Was he a mechanic?

Yes, he was a mechanic.

Yeah, ok, well nice chat. :-}

My reply was short compared to your long post - sorry. I'm arguing in other threads, it's got me distracted.

My long post was in response to your long post, so we're even. :P

If you are into raw speed then (can you handle the Truth? :D)

The 2018 Dodge SRT Demon is 418 hp (312 kW; 424 PS) per ton on 91 octane gasoline and 435 hp (324 kW; 441 PS) per ton on 100 octane or higher. Priced around $100,000.

It reaches 0–30 mph (0–48 km/h) in 1.0 second, 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in 2.3 seconds (2.0s with a rollout), 0–100 mph (0–161 km/h) in 5.1 seconds, and the quarter mile (400 m) in only 9.65 seconds at 140.09 mph (225.45 km/h).[54] This makes the Demon the fastest non-electric production car to reach 0-60 mph (0–100 km/h) and to complete a straight-line quarter mile at its time of announcement. The SRT Demon is also capable of accelerating at 1.8 G's of force at launch, making this the hardest launching production car ever.[55] The Demon can also push the boost to 14.5 psi and redline up to 6500 rpm. With this extreme power, and hard accelerating, the SRT Demon is the first production car to ever perform a wheelie.

Ya baby, go for it. Look at these three cars. That Demon is freaking crazy.

The Epic Showdown Dodge Demon,The Viper, And The Ferrari

Good god, I just wanted to talk sports cars. If you want to talk ethics, start up a thread on the ethics of sports cars. I was using this thread to escape some of the philosophy for a minute. — Sam26

Well, this is a philosophy forum...

Here's a discussion of "philosophy" that would fit you Sam now:

Perhaps not the best philosophy, but something for you...

lol

A car story:

The side blinker assembly popped out of my car. Maybe I ran up against something. I don't know. A few weeks later a kid ran into the side of my car where the blinker was popped out. So now his insurance will cover the entire repair.

When you're as good as me, you look forward to karmic paybacks.