Most indulgence is self-serving.
I come from a tradition, which would then also say, assuming that is true, that all indulgence is, therefore, wrong.
But, we do love our over-simplifications, don't we?
For one thing, not everything that is self-serving is automatically wrong (mental health, for example). And, some self-indulgence actually seems to be recommended ("eat, drink, and be merry..." — Ecc 9).
In broad terms, I do think that general conservatism is better — for both personal benefit and the good of all. After all, we are not here, primarily, to simply consume things. We are here to help and support those around us, even as has been said…for the 'glory of God'. Abundance exists. Even if it does not seem to be fairly distributed (perhaps that is our job), it is especially well-used when it helps those who don't have what they need (which, by the way, could be any one of us at any given moment).
The problem with the never-indulgent view, however, is that it, more often than not, reflects a kind of attempt at control — a type of control that heads one away from something important...trust. You have to trust something, to appropriately reflect not only on how you are able to enjoy things, but also that such will be provided again. Put another way, scarcity and trust are often at odds. And, for many (particularly religious people), it seems that disparaging indulgence is really more about control than the virtues of being conservative anyway.
So, to me, it seems wise to both save for a rainy-day (yours, or your neighbor's) and be indulgent
…from time to time.
