Consumerism and Line Drawing

[Luke T.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beerina


And sweatshops in Asia? Well, if conditions are so poor there that people line up for these jobs are you helping them by not buying the product?

---

Maybe this is subject for another thread, but I must say, Beerina, that I agree completely.

The working conditions of a sweatshop can be appalling for our Western standards, but they are still desirable to the local population. It takes them out of unemployment, it injects a minimum level of wealth within the community.

Boycotting their products might force companies to improve working conditions. But it also might force them out of business completely, after all, it is very likely they are working with low technological levels, old-fashioned management practices, inadequate logistical conditions (long distances, bad roads, crowded ports), high interest rates for loans, unstable economies and currencies, etc.. This can be too overwhelming to compensate the advantages of cheap labor and loose environmental policies, therefore they lose competitiveness completely before the international market.

This was a concept I thought about a lot when I was stationed in Guantanamo. There was a large Jamacian and Indian workforce on the base there. They were housed in atrocious living conditions by American standards. In addition, these workers could not bring their families and would sometimes not see their families for years. And they were paid low wages. However, these jobs were highly sought after by the Jamacians and Indians.

But it was still my feeling that just because these workers were better off than if they had stayed at home, the American government could afford to give them better housing, and should have.

 

[Luke T.]

I think a good example of what AS is talking about is when it comes time to vote. Is there such a thing as a perfect party that does no wrong? Hell, is there such a candidate?

How about a guy like me who hated the way the military treated its non-US workers but loved the US military overall?

You always have to draw an arbitrary line. A person would be paralyzed otherwise.

 

[DavidJames]

Sounds to me like a typical “skeptical” response of I can’t be sure of everything 100% so I’ll do nothing. Sounds like an excuse to avoid thinking and responsibility.

Other nations will pollute, so why should we cut back
They will get guns anyway, so why should we cut back.

On a smaller scale is
Why drink diet soda if you’re eating potato chips.
Why should I vote, all politicians are the same.

You always have to draw an arbitrary line. A person would be paralyzed otherwise.

Well said. It’s just that it seems some people go extraordinary lengths to justify doing nothing.

Regarding the diet soda and chips. I’ve read and heard that a lot. Yeah, I’ve had diet soda and some chips. Why, cause I drink a lot of soda and that’s over 100 calories per glass I don’t need.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Sounds to me like a typical “skeptical” response of I can’t be sure of everything 100% so I’ll do nothing. Sounds like an excuse to avoid thinking and responsibility.

Too bad you got that impression. Your conclusions are not founded. I don't insist on 100% certainty about anything. It's impossible. I'm asserting that it's hypocritical and futile to proclaim one's self to be a "moral consumer."

You can certainly make consumer choices based on moral or ethical concerns. I have no problem with that. I've probably done it myself, although no particular example springs to mind.

I do find CapelDodger's casual remark at the top to be a little self-righteous, however. I also think my former girlfriend was being self-righteous and petty. As I mentioned, I never felt like I was endorsing anti-choice by buying a pizza. What the owner does with his money is his decision, not mine. My personal boycott would mean nothing to him, the company, or to the abortion debate. Furthermore, although I do have personal feelings and opinions about abortion, I just don't feel passionately enough about them to let some superficial factoid about Domino's former owner dissuade me from making an otherwise worthy purchase. My girlfriend disagreed, but she drove a car and thus supported greedy oil companies and those evil guys at OPEC. Hmmm.... Yep, it all depends on your own pet peeves.

Other nations will pollute, so why should we cut back
They will get guns anyway, so why should we cut back.


On a smaller scale is
Why drink diet soda if you’re eating potato chips.
Why should I vote, all politicians are the same.

That reasoning is not implied by my argument, nor does it follow from it.

Well said. It’s just that it seems some people go extraordinary lengths to justify doing nothing.

Regarding the diet soda and chips. I’ve read and heard that a lot. Yeah, I’ve had diet soda and some chips. Why, cause I drink a lot of soda and that’s over 100 calories per glass I don’t need.

Well, if you deluded yourself into thinking that the diet soda somehow balanced out the empty calories of the chips, then you'd be in the same category of persons who proclaim themselves to be "moral consumers." Apparently you didn't, however, as you recognize that all you did was not consume 100 calories that you might have otherwise.

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

Of course there is a comfort level and a "drawing the line" issue. That does not mean that I must be 100% exempt of moral considerations just because I can't be 100% moral. I'll defend to death my right to having pet peeves. I will not, however, feign moral superiority if you buy the sardines that I don't, after all you can object to my beef.

That's right. You don't have to be 100% moral to be moral at all. That's part of my point. You can't be 100% moral in this context.

You're right. It's the feigning moral superiority that some people engage in that gets my goat. We each have our own pet peeves. Your having your own peeves does not compel me to have the same. You recognize that and I'm glad.

AS

 

[Cain]

AS, your stupidity is becoming something of a cliche.

My favorite example of a self-consumed, amoral bubble-head (other than AS, obviously) is Lindsay Lohan. When the evil, murderous diamond cartel De Beers opened a store in the U.S. it was met with predictable protests. As one of the celebrities attending the grand opening, she said to a reporter (about the protests) that she , "tries to avoid all the drama."

A few weeks later, browsing IMDB, a "news" item caught my attention. Apparently Lohan stormed out of the premiere of her movie because her song played as the credits rolled rather than a critical action sequence.

Now that others have easily identified the perfectionist fallacy at work in this unnecessary, moronic, and disturbing thread, the OP of course "clarifies":

Too bad you got that impression. Your conclusions are not founded. [Cain's note: uh huh] I don't insist on 100% certainty about anything. It's impossible. I'm asserting that it's hypocritical and futile to proclaim one's self to be a "moral consumer."

And who has proclaimed she is a "moral consumer"? Here's the thing: there are hypocrites and then there are hypocrites. It's easy to avoid being a hypocrite: you can just not have any moral values at all.

Now, please excuse me for acting all "self-righteous" over what is surely one of many "pet-peeves" -- in the case of this post, I am of course referring to how De Beers' encourages and enables war-lordism and slavery.

There is no bright yellow line that we can point to and say, "moral consumers" on this side and "immoral consumers" on that said. Instead a person needs to be honest with herself and ask, "Am I making a reasonable effort to be a socially responsible person?"

Judging others is also a gray line. We might not reaonsably expect a person to able to name 25 Senators currently serving, but maybe we can reasonably expect him to name the two Senators from his state. Or maybe we can reasonably demand that he knows each state has two Senators! The point is that the concept of "reasonableness" is fuzzy, and it does not apply only to consumer choices. How informed should a person be of U.S. history? World history? Biology? Physics? Economics?

 

[AmateurScientist]

.............

Thank you, Cain, once again for dropping in and gracing us with your words of wisdom and charm.

We should all strive to attain the level of social grace and tolerance that you display so well.

Also, I'd like to borrow your own personal book of pet peeves. It appears to be much better than mine.

AS

 

[tim]

AS, your stupidity is becoming something of a cliche.

My favorite example of a self-consumed, amoral bubble-head (other than AS, obviously) is Lindsay Lohan. When the evil, murderous diamond cartel De Beers opened a store in the U.S. it was met with predictable protests. As one of the celebrities attending the grand opening, she said to a reporter (about the protests) that she , "tries to avoid all the drama."

A few weeks later, browsing IMDB, a "news" item caught my attention. Apparently Lohan stormed out of the premiere of her movie because her song played as the credits rolled rather than a critical action sequence.

Now that others have easily identified the perfectionist fallacy at work in this unnecessary, moronic, and disturbing thread, the OP of course "clarifies":



And who has proclaimed she is a "moral consumer"? Here's the thing: there are hypocrites and then there are hypocrites. It's easy to avoid being a hypocrite: you can just not have any moral values at all.

Now, please excuse me for acting all "self-righteous" over what is surely one of many "pet-peeves" -- in the case of this post, I am of course referring to how De Beers' encourages and enables war-lordism and slavery.

There is no bright yellow line that we can point to and say, "moral consumers" on this side and "immoral consumers" on that said. Instead a person needs to be honest with herself and ask, "Am I making a reasonable effort to be a socially responsible person?"

Judging others is also a gray line. We might not reaonsably expect a person to able to name 25 Senators currently serving, but maybe we can reasonably expect him to name the two Senators from his state. Or maybe we can reasonably demand that he knows each state has two Senators! The point is that the concept of "reasonableness" is fuzzy, and it does not apply only to consumer choices. How informed should a person be of U.S. history? World history? Biology? Physics? Economics?

Cain, refrain from personally insulting other posters. Please consider this an official warning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: tim