MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should super-rich Aristotle still buy bargain bin food?

jonthedog

This is exactly the same as giving up your seat on the tube for someone in greater need; yes the seats are 'there for everyone', but it is simply common courtesy. If you are fairly confident no one else is going to use it/buy it then sit in the seat or buy the reduced item. Bargain bin items are like the priority seats on public transport; people really shouldn't have to be told to give them them up, but judging from the response of some people on this site with their 'every man for himself' attitude, I can see why they have them.

Linguistic_Chimp

Aristotle should splash out and stump up the cash for the full price goods. Actually if he's that loaded, then perhaps he could set up a local scheme to help the elderly stock their food cupboards without having the scrabble for the bargains?

I am a young person living in London, and try to take advantage of reduced goods in the supermarket whenever possible. But I am very very aware in the fruit and veg section especially that there are about 10 pensioners at any one time competing for the contents of the bargain bin too. I never take the last thing there as I would feel bad taking what is actually necessary food from an old person just for me to enjoy an added bargain bonus.

pyranhi

I think he should behave in whichever way he feels comfortable. Why because he has had good fortune do people think he then owes them something? If he wants to buy reduced food items and has always bought reduced food items why should coming into money change this? Sure he can afford to but why should he have to change? Why should he (as suggested by many here) give a lot of the money and/or his time to charity?

I think people seem to assume that somebody with money owes this money to the poor.

If the poorer people want to buy the reduced food items they should be there first, I don't think it their right to reduced food items simply because they are poor/poorer.