"You cannot spend money in luxury without doing good to the poor. Nay, you do more good to them by spending it in luxury, than by giving it; for by spending it in luxury, you make them exert industry, whereas by giving it, you keep them idle"
About this Quote
Johnson is doing something sly here: taking the smug moral posture of charity and flipping it into an argument for indulgence. The sentence struts with courtroom confidence - "Nay" as a gavel bang - and then smuggles in a deeply 18th-century assumption: that the poor are a labor supply whose best moral state is productive exertion, not relief.
The intent is partly polemical and partly self-protective. In a Britain where luxury was increasingly visible (and increasingly condemned as decadence), Johnson offers a justification that lets the comfortable enjoy their comforts without the nuisance of guilt. He recasts consumption as a kind of public service: buy the expensive thing, and you are "doing good" because your spending creates demand for work. It's an early, pugnacious version of trickle-down logic, dressed up as practical ethics.
The subtext is harsher. "Industry" is framed as the poor person's proper duty, while idleness becomes the great sin supposedly produced by direct giving. That move shifts the moral scrutiny away from structural inequality and onto the recipient's character. Charity, in this telling, is not just inefficient; it's corrupting. Luxury is not just permissible; it's disciplinary.
Context matters: Johnson lived amid debates over commerce, refinement, and the moral panic around "luxury" in a growing consumer economy. His line reads like a retort to puritan scolding and sentimental philanthropy alike. It's also a reminder that arguments about poverty often double as arguments about control: not merely how wealth circulates, but who gets to decide what counts as virtue.
The intent is partly polemical and partly self-protective. In a Britain where luxury was increasingly visible (and increasingly condemned as decadence), Johnson offers a justification that lets the comfortable enjoy their comforts without the nuisance of guilt. He recasts consumption as a kind of public service: buy the expensive thing, and you are "doing good" because your spending creates demand for work. It's an early, pugnacious version of trickle-down logic, dressed up as practical ethics.
The subtext is harsher. "Industry" is framed as the poor person's proper duty, while idleness becomes the great sin supposedly produced by direct giving. That move shifts the moral scrutiny away from structural inequality and onto the recipient's character. Charity, in this telling, is not just inefficient; it's corrupting. Luxury is not just permissible; it's disciplinary.
Context matters: Johnson lived amid debates over commerce, refinement, and the moral panic around "luxury" in a growing consumer economy. His line reads like a retort to puritan scolding and sentimental philanthropy alike. It's also a reminder that arguments about poverty often double as arguments about control: not merely how wealth circulates, but who gets to decide what counts as virtue.
Quote Details
| Topic | Money |
|---|
More Quotes by Samuel
Add to List
