AmateurScientist
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 5,268
Here's a quote of my original post in the Vegetarianism thread to which CapelDodger replied and what inspired this thread:
Fine. I'll start a new thread if you're interested.
That's not what I meant by line drawing. I'm not referring to drawing a line with regard to any particular consumer product you might consider buying. I'm referring to drawing a line somewhere that delineates products about which you conduct some sort of investigation into their source, and their distribution chain, etc., and products about which you do not conduct such an investigation. Please allow me to explain further.
Let's start with the premise that a moral consumer has a duty to investigate whether a particular product has been produced with some acceptable degree of what I'll call "social responsibility." Once you accept that premise, then all sorts of practical problems arise from it.
First, what criteria do you use to decide whether the product is acceptable to you from the perspective of its having been made and distributed to you without violating some ethical code to which you subscribe, such that you will not to buy it? I submit that for any given person, such criteria will most likely revolve around his or her own pet peeves. Thus, it is highly subjective and will necessarily vary from person to person.
Second, how much investigation do you have to do to gather sufficient data which will allow you to make an informed decision about its social responsibility? Do you have to take an active role in the investigation, or can you sleep at night knowing that you're relying solely on information you receive passively, such as from the newspaper, the television news, or third-party hearsay accounts? Is one approach more moral or socially responsible, and if so, then why?
Third, how far along the production chain do you have to investigate? Do you have to start with the raw materials and move forward along the chain? What if some of the raw materials come only from a country whose government officially endorses something morally objectionable, such as genocide? What about the casings, the packing materials, the labels? How about the hiring practices of the trucking firm used to get the products from the production facility to the warehouse (what if they discriminate unfairly on the basis of sex, for instance)? How about the shippers? It could go on and on.
Fourth, let's assume you can actually gather the resources and find the time to conduct what we'll agree is a thorough enough investigation of the chain of production and distribution for any given product. Don't you then have a moral obligation to conduct the same kind of investigation into all competing products, so that you can then select only the "most" moral one as being worthy of your purchase?
Fifth--and here's what I meant originally by the line drawing bit, but I've extended it further now to other concepts--assuming you can and do conduct a thorough investigation of the entire chain of production and distribution for one product, how can you practically do the same for every consumer good (not to mention services) you use?
Because no one can possibly perform such an investigation into the practices of all the firms and government agencies which might be involved in producing and distributing all the goods one might consider consuming, then out of practical necessity and by definition one cannot conduct such an investigation with respect to any least some of the goods one uses.
That is drawing the line. One simply cannot engage in such deliberate investigation and analysis with respect to everything one uses, as no one has that kind of time or the resources for it. Therefore, if one is to give such an undertaking a go, then one must select some products to investigate and analyze for their social responsibility, and disregard doing the same with respect to others. That is drawing a line and in essence declaring that "Here's where I will make moral consumer decisions that I find acceptable, and there's where I will not."
Thus, you have to admit that with respect to some consumer decisions you make, you too are acting amorally.
How then do you reconcile your apparent commitment to being a "moral" consumer with the fact that you cannot possibly engage in such deliberate investigation and analysis with respect to them all? In other words, is your position really so principled? I suggest that it may be in some cases, but then in those in which you choose not to conduct an investigation and analysis, it isn't. Your stance is necessarily, on a practical, not theoretical level, inconsistent. You're "moral" within your own parameters sometimes, and other times you aren't.
I contend that you have to be an amoral consumer in some cases, if you are going to be a consumer at all and not a self-sufficient hermit, if there is such a thing. If that's the case, then from where do you derive your moral superiority over any other consumer you deem amoral? That you do so is the implication of your response to me above.
(Note: by "suit your own comfort level" I'm not referring to indulging in hedonism or selfishness. I'm referring to whatever level or degree of moral satisfaction, or social responsibility, that you personally find acceptable. I hope you will at least agree that such level or degree will vary among individual consumers, even those whom you deem to be acting morally.)
AS
[Edited to clarify ending parenthetical]
AmateurScientist[/i] Let the line drawing begin. Once you begin doing that said:
Fine. I'll start a new thread if you're interested.
That's not what I meant by line drawing. I'm not referring to drawing a line with regard to any particular consumer product you might consider buying. I'm referring to drawing a line somewhere that delineates products about which you conduct some sort of investigation into their source, and their distribution chain, etc., and products about which you do not conduct such an investigation. Please allow me to explain further.
Let's start with the premise that a moral consumer has a duty to investigate whether a particular product has been produced with some acceptable degree of what I'll call "social responsibility." Once you accept that premise, then all sorts of practical problems arise from it.
First, what criteria do you use to decide whether the product is acceptable to you from the perspective of its having been made and distributed to you without violating some ethical code to which you subscribe, such that you will not to buy it? I submit that for any given person, such criteria will most likely revolve around his or her own pet peeves. Thus, it is highly subjective and will necessarily vary from person to person.
Second, how much investigation do you have to do to gather sufficient data which will allow you to make an informed decision about its social responsibility? Do you have to take an active role in the investigation, or can you sleep at night knowing that you're relying solely on information you receive passively, such as from the newspaper, the television news, or third-party hearsay accounts? Is one approach more moral or socially responsible, and if so, then why?
Third, how far along the production chain do you have to investigate? Do you have to start with the raw materials and move forward along the chain? What if some of the raw materials come only from a country whose government officially endorses something morally objectionable, such as genocide? What about the casings, the packing materials, the labels? How about the hiring practices of the trucking firm used to get the products from the production facility to the warehouse (what if they discriminate unfairly on the basis of sex, for instance)? How about the shippers? It could go on and on.
Fourth, let's assume you can actually gather the resources and find the time to conduct what we'll agree is a thorough enough investigation of the chain of production and distribution for any given product. Don't you then have a moral obligation to conduct the same kind of investigation into all competing products, so that you can then select only the "most" moral one as being worthy of your purchase?
Fifth--and here's what I meant originally by the line drawing bit, but I've extended it further now to other concepts--assuming you can and do conduct a thorough investigation of the entire chain of production and distribution for one product, how can you practically do the same for every consumer good (not to mention services) you use?
Because no one can possibly perform such an investigation into the practices of all the firms and government agencies which might be involved in producing and distributing all the goods one might consider consuming, then out of practical necessity and by definition one cannot conduct such an investigation with respect to any least some of the goods one uses.
That is drawing the line. One simply cannot engage in such deliberate investigation and analysis with respect to everything one uses, as no one has that kind of time or the resources for it. Therefore, if one is to give such an undertaking a go, then one must select some products to investigate and analyze for their social responsibility, and disregard doing the same with respect to others. That is drawing a line and in essence declaring that "Here's where I will make moral consumer decisions that I find acceptable, and there's where I will not."
Thus, you have to admit that with respect to some consumer decisions you make, you too are acting amorally.
How then do you reconcile your apparent commitment to being a "moral" consumer with the fact that you cannot possibly engage in such deliberate investigation and analysis with respect to them all? In other words, is your position really so principled? I suggest that it may be in some cases, but then in those in which you choose not to conduct an investigation and analysis, it isn't. Your stance is necessarily, on a practical, not theoretical level, inconsistent. You're "moral" within your own parameters sometimes, and other times you aren't.
I contend that you have to be an amoral consumer in some cases, if you are going to be a consumer at all and not a self-sufficient hermit, if there is such a thing. If that's the case, then from where do you derive your moral superiority over any other consumer you deem amoral? That you do so is the implication of your response to me above.
(Note: by "suit your own comfort level" I'm not referring to indulging in hedonism or selfishness. I'm referring to whatever level or degree of moral satisfaction, or social responsibility, that you personally find acceptable. I hope you will at least agree that such level or degree will vary among individual consumers, even those whom you deem to be acting morally.)
AS
[Edited to clarify ending parenthetical]
However, I don't expect anyone else to even understand my rationale, let alone follow me on that matter.