los! Thank you for your response!
I did not bring 'morality' to this discourse but your first argument introduced that. Like you have rightly noted, it is a matter of perspective. Not everybody will see it as a bad thing and to look at it from the utilitarian angle, you will agree with me that if greater people benefit from such act, it is a good one.
The 'IV' is hypothetical and i do not really get the logic behind it but i think you are trying to draw the importance between spending money to make yourself or someone happy and making them happy by just being there and creating time for them.
Since your first sentence is an approval of my conclusion in a way, i think you answered me with a 'yes' (not totally affirmative though)!!!
You can throw more light on the 'IV'.
Thanks for your time once again.
In (IV), I was simply noting that we live in a society where money is earned, for the most part at least. That is why we have work and jobs. In order to attain money, we must commit a portion of our time, and for many people, a majority of our lives.
For many hours a day, we slave our lives away to make money. However, time spent working is time lost somewhere else, like forming stronger relationships or enjoying a hobby. This is where the saying is relevant, especially for workaholics. It doesn't matter how much money you have if you don't have time to spend it or anyone to spend it on.