In Defense of Black Friday
There is never not an opportunity every Christmas time to clear up some misconceptions about Christianity. There is lots of talk about the star, how many magi appeared to the baby Jesus, the exact date of Jesus birth, the viability of miraculous events like a virgin birth, etc. The worst come from Christians. They should know better, and some don’t, but the ignorant never pass up a moment to declare their ignorance. Maybe this is one of them. Hopefully not.
One particular theme I’ve noticed this year is this: it is hypocritical for Christians (or any American) to go Black Friday shopping the day after Thanksgiving. I’ve noticed this on Facebook, and they are accompanied by images. I don’t like this. Images appeal to emotion, and emotion can distort clear thinking. Maybe blind men see things more clearly then. As Ravi Zacharias has said about this generation, we listen with our eyes and think with our feelings. So, is this in fact hypocritical?
To be a hypocrite is to say one thing but do the opposite. For example, if I say to you, with a cigarette in my mouth, that you ought not smoke, I am being a hypocrite. Thanksgiving, we traditionally eat a feast and reflect on what we are thankful for. To be a hypocrite then, Black Friday must represent either a fast (abstaining from eating) or not being thankful. It is the latter that is the better contender.
Is that what Black Friday means? Do people make purchases on Black Friday betray that they are not grateful for what they have? No, for many reasons. First, Black Friday is the day we get most of our Christmas shopping done. Christmas gifts are not usually for us. They are for others. So Black Friday is a day we give to others. What is ungrateful about this? Nothing. In fact, for myself, this is going to be the first Christmas I will have had a steady paying job, and so in giving thanks for having such a great job, I will be buying more stuff for more people. So, really, Black Friday and Thanksgiving are a perfect match for each other.
Secondly, Black Friday offers great deals. Many things will be discounted. Is this wrong? I don’t see how. If it is, is paying more money, like $100 for a book that is worth $10, a good thing? Obviously not. That would be foolish, because then you don’t have spending power for other things, like giving other people gifts or throwing some cash to a charity. So, because it allows you to retain some more spending power, you have many more opportunities to do good elsewhere. For the consumer this is good because it allows him more opportunities for charity, but this is also morally good for the business for it actually creates that environment for you to do more good, and they’ll still be making a profit, which gives those business people more spending power, and it continues to trickle.
Thirdly, if one makes purchases for themselves and not for others this still would not qualify one as not being thankful. You can be very thankful for many things and still desire more. My computer, for example, is going to give out soon. It does weird things which often signals it will just crash soon. I’ve had my computer for about four or five years now, and I’m very thankful for it. It served me well. Is it okay if I don’t get my new computer? Sure, but I will be getting one no matter what once this netbook of mine finally gives out. But does it follow that I should not desire another? No because being thankful and being satisfied are not identical. A clear case of this: a starving child asks me for some food and I give him a slice of bread. Is he thankful for what I gave him? Yes. Is it wrong for him to desire more? No. Therefore, the two are not identical and thus no hypocrisy.
But is it wrong to have more than we need? No. But some would like you to think it is. There was one particular picture I saw on Facebook that angered me quite a bit. There were two frames. In the first was a picture of poor starving black children holding out their hands. The following frame was a group of white people in a mess that can only be a result of Black Friday. The message? It is wrong to have more than you need.
It is good to be affluent. If it is not good, then is being poor morally superior? Obviously not. It is something to be remedied. So if being poor is not good, and the less poor you are the better off your are, then the more you have, the better off you are. It’s that simple. Imagine this: Castles on the French Riviera. I would like one. Is a castle on the French Riviera more than what I need? Sure is. But what if I could give everyone in the world a castle on the French Riviera? Would that be good, or would that not be good? Obviously, it would be good. Therefore, having more than what you need is not bad. So, even if I want more than I need, this isn’t bad. In fact, isn’t God’s grace just like that, more than what we need?
Maybe they mean to say that it is wrong to be affluent so long as some people are poor. The problem is twofold. First, this seems to assume the economy is a zero-sum game. Some economists have gone so far as to call this a fallacy. But clearly, the economy doesn’t work this way. I’m planning to buy my sister an iPod. I’m willing to pay about $175 for an older model or a newer used model. I think that is what they’re worth. A dealer like BookOff might sell me a pink model that I like for $150. Seeing this, I make the exchange. I now have an iPod that I bought because I thought it was a good deal, and BookOff sold me an iPod at that price because they thought it was a good deal. We both walk away with some monetary increase. A rising tide floats all boats, they say.
Secondly, without affluence, we could not help alleviate poverty. If we did not have more than we need, or in other words if we had only what we needed, then we could not wisely give anything away to those who are in need. The more you have, the more you can give away. Giving away, being charitable, is morally good, so the more affluent you are, the more possibilities you have for being good. That is good. If we took everything from the affluent to give to the poor, which is communism, then not only are you a commie (which is like, totally not Biblical) again assuming the economy is zero sum, but you are stealing as well. God’s commandment to steal assumes the right to private property, and private property is what allows us to be creative and flourish.
It may be that those who put up these anti-Black Friday posts simply haven't thought critically about it, and are jumping on the bandwagon. But I suspect some aren't. Some are trying to be self-righteous, and this holiday season, we should be reminded it isn't all about it. Don't be a poot. Okay? Okay. Happy Holidays!
Hi Adrian. I read your post and appreciate your insight on Black Friday shopping. I personally sway against the tradition and wanted to offer you my mere opinion about your argument, where it may seem weak, and where critics may attack you. Because I have sympathy for Christianity and for Christians, I wanted to get to some of the points before ruder and more aggressive critics respond.
ReplyDelete"For the consumer this is good because it allows him more opportunities for charity, but this is also morally good for the business for it actually creates that environment for you to do more good, and they’ll still be making a profit, which gives those business people more spending power, and it continues to trickle. "
Here I take you to mean that the money saved from the sales can then be distributed to charity. Furthermore the business itself is also doing a moral service because it allows such an opportunity. The profits will then be used to create more wealth which will trickle down, hopefully helping the unfortunate.
My first critique is that if you want to call something morally good then you must look at intentions. I don't believe many of the black friday shoppers or the shops have charity in mind. Most I believe merely want to save money or make money.
If the argument is that the creation of this opportunity is morally good, in that it allows possibilities for charity, then wouldn't it be better for the shoppers to refrain from spending at all and instead donate that money to charity? Or how about the spender merely buys the items he essentially needs, and gives all extra money to the most effective charities.
"But is it wrong to have more than we need? No. But some would like you to think it is. There was one particular picture I saw on Facebook that angered me quite a bit. There were two frames. In the first was a picture of poor starving black children holding out their hands. The following frame was a group of white people in a mess that can only be a result of Black Friday. The message? It is wrong to have more than you need. "
I think you misinterpreted the pathos of this picture, which I personally find very funny if not sad. I believe the picture isn't saying we shouldn't have more than we need. Instead it's meant to contrast the over extravagance of first world greed with the plight of the dying. Surely, Jesus must find something wrong if a Christian were to spend 500 dollars on a television, when a 100$ television set would work just the same, when the extremely poor are dying by easily preventable diseases. It's not wrong to have more than you need, a notebook is certainly a permissible luxury; but it is morally questionable when luxury gets out of hand. I believe this is the virtue of modesty/temperance.
"It is good to be affluent. If it is not good, then is being poor morally superior? Obviously not. It is something to be remedied. So if being poor is not good, and the less poor you are the better off your are, then the more you have, the better off you are. It’s that simple. Imagine this: Castles on the French Riviera. I would like one. Is a castle on the French Riviera more than what I need? Sure is. But what if I could give everyone in the world a castle on the French Riviera? Would that be good, or would that not be good? Obviously, it would be good. Therefore, having more than what you need is not bad. So, even if I want more than I need, this isn’t bad. In fact, isn’t God’s grace just like that, more than what we need? "
I personally don't think having material goods is necessarily good. It's good insofar as it can produce pleasure or meaning in our lives. The more of this you get via simple things like enjoying fruits or a bright day, the better. Plus, isn't it morally questionable for the king to live safely in his castle while he leaves the poor peasants to starve? Isn't it morally questionable for us to spend money building a castle when that money could go elsewhere?
"I think you misinterpreted the pathos of this picture, which I personally find very funny if not sad. " by "which" I mean I find the picture funny and sad.
DeleteThanks for the reply! Sorry for my late response. Not many people actually comment onto here and so I didn't check until just now lol
Delete"if you want to call something morally good then you must look at intentions. I don't believe many of the black friday shoppers or the shops have charity in mind." Intentions are a major factor. I don't deny that. I think here though, when it comes to blending morality and economics, moral intentions are best put secondary. When we try to be first and foremost moral with money, it leads to disaster. Castro, when asked if he was a communist, replied he was a humanist. So, while in many cases, I think you're correct, it isn't so when it comes to economic. Don't misunderstand me, I don't think you can divorce them either, but for the best economic moral system, it has to be subtle and encouraged. Black Friday savings are not meant for a moral purpose, but it does foster that environment and it is the best way economically to do that.
"If the argument is that the creation of this opportunity is morally good, in that it allows possibilities for charity, then wouldn't it be better for the shoppers to refrain from spending at all and instead donate that money to charity?" No, not at all, on multiple grounds. We obtain that money we are giving away BECAUSE we are spending. We receive money because of goods and services we exchanged for money. If no one is buying, no one is getting paid, and if no one is getting paid, there is no money to give away. Also, it is good to give to charity, but I didn't mean that to exclude buying. It is good to buy things as well. Like I said, our money goes to the workers who made that product possible. Further, giving to charity instead of buying I would argue is a vice due to the behaviors it encourages. Dependence, laziness, etc. There are many problems with the idea of simply just giving it all away.
" Or how about the spender merely buys the items he essentially needs, and gives all extra money to the most effective charities." Then I would argue this is not wise. If capitalism is what fosters wealth and is what best raises people out of poverty, then you need...capital. The more capital you have, the more risks you can take to expand your business. You might also need emergency money. It is good and wise to save money, which is why it is good to be affluent, because it is these people who best help the poor. And as I have repeat and so strongly believe, the most effective charity is the one that doesn't last. Charity helps those in immediate need. Charity is a band-aid. Free markets are the cure. The more business, the better.
"I think you misinterpreted the pathos of this picture, which I personally find very funny if not sad." Maybe. But if my interpretation isn't correct, then it is at least plausible. And if it is, then I'm sure I'm not the only one who took it that way, and so my comments are still relevant. It can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what these things try to convey when they aren't explicit.
"Instead it's meant to contrast the over extravagance of first world greed with the plight of the dying." Obviously, I disagree, and I explain later in the post. I also see you disagree with me on that point too, and I'll get to that.
"it's meant to contrast the over extravagance of first world greed with the plight of the dying." Why is that contrast problematic for me? It is only if you think that by my being affluent there is somehow a loss on the other persons part. But that assumes a zero-sum view of economics, which does seem obviously false. So, even if true, this shouldn't be a problem.
Delete"Surely, Jesus must find something wrong if a Christian were to spend 500 dollars on a television, when a 100$ television set would work just the same." I agree. Not only is this morally wrong, it's stupid. And the consumers aren't stupid either. If you have two prices for essentially the same television, the consumer is going to go for the cheaper one. And the business that didn't get the sell is at loss and so must adapt or die. I do believe I gave a similar example, didn't I? With the book and paying 100 vs 10? So yes, I don't think we disagree here.
"but it is morally questionable when luxury gets out of hand. I believe this is the virtue of modesty/temperance" I don't think it is. You might be thinking of greed. If you are, then I would say you have mistakenly thought that greed is more of a danger if you're rich than if you were poor. Mitt Romney is wealthy as heck and gives a lot away, but you can't say he is greedier than a welfare queen with multiple kids for more money who refuses to get a job. In fact, she's greedier, though poorer. It is mistake to say that the more you have, the more questionable it becomes, and the counterexample I gave demonstrates that.
"I personally don't think having material goods is necessarily good." Then let me recommend a book. "The Good of Affluence: Seeking God in a Culture of Wealth". This has influenced my view on Biblical economics more than any other book and has definitely influenced this post.
"Plus, isn't it morally questionable for the king to live safely in his castle while he leaves the poor peasants to starve? Isn't it morally questionable for us to spend money building a castle when that money could go elsewhere?" Again, this assumes a zero-sum. Who builds the castle? Who pays them? Who maintains the castle? Who pays them? Don't castles attract tourists and hence business? In fact, the very word "economy" means, loosely translated, housekeeping.
"Maybe they mean to say that it is wrong to be affluent so long as some people are poor. The problem is twofold. First, this seems to assume the economy is a zero-sum game. Some economists have gone so far as to call this a fallacy. But clearly, the economy doesn’t work this way. I’m planning to buy my sister an iPod. I’m willing to pay about $175 for an older model or a newer used model. I think that is what they’re worth. A dealer like BookOff might sell me a pink model that I like for $150. Seeing this, I make the exchange. I now have an iPod that I bought because I thought it was a good deal, and BookOff sold me an iPod at that price because they thought it was a good deal. We both walk away with some monetary increase. A rising tide floats all boats, they say. "
ReplyDeleteIt may be true that spending wealth creates more wealth. However you must ask yourself where this newly created wealth is going, and if its significant enough to merit the transaction. I mean couldn't you also donate this wealth to preventing diseases in third world countries and thereby creating a more stable economy there, or perhaps give out small loans for people to set up businesses there, or any other type of charity that makes people more independent?
Anyways, I was interested in your post and wanted to give you my thoughts.
God bless!
For more on where I'm coming from on charity, I found this ted talk particularly inspiring.
Deletehttp://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism.html
"I mean couldn't you also donate this wealth to preventing diseases in third world countries and thereby creating a more stable economy there" Well, I'm not sure that's accurate. You might have your cause and effect backwards there.
Delete"perhaps give out small loans for people to set up businesses there," YES! Absolutely. I actually advocate this over simply throwing money at people. I think God's people flourish when they're allowed to use their creative powers. It's the gift that keeps on giving. :-)