Thanks to Zuska for disseminating the story of the $20,000 dog house. She makes her moral point by comparing this to her mother’s assisted living abode. But the dog house is merely the tip of the iceberg. John McCain evidently has seven homes (he couldn’t recall the exact number), and there are “summer people” where I live who build $5+ million homes on the lakefront, which they occupy less than two months of the year. I don’t personally think anyone has a moral obligation to give away their money, but that does not mean we shouldn’t look down on those who could but don’t. To borrow an analogy from Judith Thomson: It is unjust if two brothers jointly receive a box of chocolates and one brother eats all of them and gives the other nothing. It is not unjust if the one brother receives the box of chocolates as a present and then eats them all in front of his sibling, but it is unkind, uncaring, and unconscionable.

I’ve often wondered whether people like this might suffer from a form of psychopathy; they are psychopaths who are very good at processing social information and thus are able to redirect their antisocial desires in a non-criminal, though certainly not moral, way. I know most of these people don’t intend harm to their fellow human beings. They are simply going mindlessly about their business, feeding their own greedy selves instead of helping those who could be helped. But they have no empathy, a basic moral emotion. As for cluelessness, there are aspects of society we are obligated to think about if we are to maintain a moral position. I find the guy in the Hummer with the “Poor People Suck” bumper sticker more tolerable than those who have never even considered the poor.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the rich competed with each other to see who could give the most to charity, rather than who can buy the biggest boat, the largest house or the most expensive car? Remember the potlatch of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest where, according to some, chieftains gave away their wealth in order to increase their status? We need to reinvent the potlatch as a substitute for status-seeking pissing contests. The big shots can then perform according to handicap-principle standards, stotting and screeching and fanning their tail feathers for all to see, and at the same time benefit the less fortunate! Sure, they might get the pick of the available spouses, but sexual selection ain’t what it used to be!

I’m no advocate of worldwide wealth redistribution. I know the world is unfair. I’m not asking you who conspicuously consume not to buy new homes or new cars, not to save for the future or send your kids to the best boarding schools and private colleges. I’m not even suggesting you forego that $5 million summer home. I’m merely suggesting you make it a $4 million home and do some good in the world with the rest.