5 ms·

I seriously disagree with this (assuming its not a joke, or that some people wont read it as such). We live in an intensely interconnected world, and although

I seriously disagree with this (assuming its not a joke, or that some people wont read it as such). We live in an intensely interconnected world, and although its challenging to unpick those connections, to not do so is to become complicit in all manor of frankly very bad shit. We only get to vote once every 4 or 5 years, but every time you spend (or earn) a dollar or pound, you are contributing to a system, you are channeling money in a particular direction. Giant corporations have, without any need for anyone to plan it, slowly accumulated more and more power to themselves. e.g. check up on the series of judgements that were used to grant them personhood. They now stomp about the planet like huge immortal toddlers, with little oversight and not much in the way of conscience. If you dont care, then fine. But if you do care dont let articles like this tell you not to bother. And yes ethical consumption is complicated. A good starting point is to assume everything is tainted unless you know otherwise. And although none of the supposed 'good' ways are straightforward (there are complex arguments around Fair Trade, Organic etc), you should never let the perfect become the enemy of the good. That is, dont be pit off from trying to do one thing right just because you can't do everything right. Buying stuff secondhand where possible is a good default position I find (although there are debates around that as well)

paulojreis 11y ago
I agree with you. What I see (in this article and many other similar statements) is the rationalization of being part of evil and then the next logical step, the rationalization of doing it without feeling guilty or bad. "I have to do evil because I need to eat" and then "I have to forgive myself for this, otherwise life's unbearable". There are people - me included - actively applying strategies to don't feel bad about being part of evil. So, we know this, and we're spending time thinking about this; how do we channel the energy to revert instead of keeping the system as is?
strictnein 11y ago
> "check up on the series of judgements that were used to grant them personhood" Corporate personhood is a centuries old idea, and an important one at that. The idea that it was created recently is false. http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alumni/uvalawyer/f11/personhood.htm http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alumni/uvalawyer/f11/person...
- codeulike 11y ago
  I never said it was recent. It was done in the last couple of centuries via a series of legal precedents. That is, no-one ever voted for it or legislated it. It was done bit by bit by various legal judgements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Historical_background_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Historica... After the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, there was some question as to whether the Amendment applied to other than freed slaves, and whether its protections could be invoked by corporations and other organizations of persons ...
tremon 11y ago
I would call it satire, i.e. putting a humourous spin on a serious subject. But I will respond to your post in a serious manner nonetheless. Your second sentence perfectly illustrates the point the article is trying to make, that "the increasing moralisation of mundane choices is strongly associated with the phenomenology of interminable inescapable guilt". As the article argues, when we overload our moral judgements by making every single act a moral deliberation, one measurable effect will be an overall lessening of our moral convictions. Yes, you only vote a few times every odd years. No, your tax dollars are not "channeled in a particular direction". Yes, business interests are still fundamentally at odds with environmental concerns. No, the few pennies you spend on products of a particular business do not affect the business' behaviour. The amount of moral deliberation that is reasonable to "demand" for such a simple act should be proportional to the ratio of your expenditure versus the entire business size. > And yes ethical consumption is complicated. A good starting point is to assume everything is tainted unless you know otherwise I don't think this is a useful starting point. If you start by assuming everything is tainted, you are already making a moral judgement about every purchase. Judgements and decisions cost mental energy, and we already know that mental energy is not infinite. > That is, dont be pit off from trying to do one thing right just because you can't do everything right. But that is exactly what's happening subconciously anyway: if we perceive (some of) our morals to be untenable (because of unrealistic demands, no way to actually make an impact, or general information/decision overload), that causes us to weaken all of our morals, even the ones we can affect. Pick your battles, is what I'd take from this. And when evangelizing a cause, make sure the burden you're placing on others is realistic.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- codeulike 11y ago
  I'm not talking about tax dollars. I'm talking about peoples personal spending decisions. No, the few pennies you spend on products of a particular business do not affect the business' behaviour. Thats patently false. Its a small effect obviously, but its an effect. You could argue that recyling household waste is pointless from the same logic (and people do, I know)
pitt1980 11y ago
Here's the problem I have with this (I probably haven't worked this out well enough in my mind to pursausively argue for it on the internet, but this is what goes through my mind every time I encounter this): - (all/most/many/some/ at least a few) problems are best solved locally, by treating the people around you as well as you can - you have the most control first over your own happiness, then over your immediate family's happiness, then over close families happiness ....... etc etc etc - you have almost no control over someone's happiness on the other side of the planet ----------- look, I don't want some kid in Côte d'Ivoire to be a child slave, but I'm relatively sure my chocolate consumption is a tiny drop in that bucket (though just typing that out made me want to use less chocolate) moreover, even if I stop using chocolate, his happiness is still far more dependent on the people local to him than it is to me -------------------- anecdotally, strikes me that the people I know who love to get on their high horse about normal western consumer patterns, don't put that much thought into being fairly miserable to the people that they actually directly interact with (I'll concede that that's not a fair generalization) ------------------- TLDR, it strikes me that treating people better that you actually interact with is the best way to make the world a better place
- codeulike 11y ago
  Its not that hard to do both. A drop in a bucket is still a drop. And if there are many drops, and they start falling in a different bucket ...
- ksenzee 11y ago
  Indeed. What you're describing is the principle of moral proximity: the closer someone is to you, the greater your obligation to help them.

paulojreis 11y ago

I agree with you. What I see (in this article and many other similar statements) is the rationalization of being part of evil and then the next logical step, the rationalization of doing it without feeling guilty or bad. "I have to do evil because I need to eat" and then "I have to forgive myself for this, otherwise life's unbearable". There are people - me included - actively applying strategies to don't feel bad about being part of evil. So, we know this, and we're spending time thinking about this; how do we channel the energy to revert instead of keeping the system as is?

strictnein 11y ago

> "check up on the series of judgements that were used to grant them personhood" Corporate personhood is a centuries old idea, and an important one at that. The idea that it was created recently is false. http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alumni/uvalawyer/f11/personhood.htm http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alumni/uvalawyer/f11/person...

codeulike 11y ago
I never said it was recent. It was done in the last couple of centuries via a series of legal precedents. That is, no-one ever voted for it or legislated it. It was done bit by bit by various legal judgements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Historical_background_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Historica... After the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, there was some question as to whether the Amendment applied to other than freed slaves, and whether its protections could be invoked by corporations and other organizations of persons ...

tremon 11y ago

I would call it satire, i.e. putting a humourous spin on a serious subject. But I will respond to your post in a serious manner nonetheless. Your second sentence perfectly illustrates the point the article is trying to make, that "the increasing moralisation of mundane choices is strongly associated with the phenomenology of interminable inescapable guilt". As the article argues, when we overload our moral judgements by making every single act a moral deliberation, one measurable effect will be an overall lessening of our moral convictions. Yes, you only vote a few times every odd years. No, your tax dollars are not "channeled in a particular direction". Yes, business interests are still fundamentally at odds with environmental concerns. No, the few pennies you spend on products of a particular business do not affect the business' behaviour. The amount of moral deliberation that is reasonable to "demand" for such a simple act should be proportional to the ratio of your expenditure versus the entire business size. > And yes ethical consumption is complicated. A good starting point is to assume everything is tainted unless you know otherwise I don't think this is a useful starting point. If you start by assuming everything is tainted, you are already making a moral judgement about every purchase. Judgements and decisions cost mental energy, and we already know that mental energy is not infinite. > That is, dont be pit off from trying to do one thing right just because you can't do everything right. But that is exactly what's happening subconciously anyway: if we perceive (some of) our morals to be untenable (because of unrealistic demands, no way to actually make an impact, or general information/decision overload), that causes us to weaken all of our morals, even the ones we can affect. Pick your battles, is what I'd take from this. And when evangelizing a cause, make sure the burden you're placing on others is realistic.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
codeulike 11y ago
I'm not talking about tax dollars. I'm talking about peoples personal spending decisions. No, the few pennies you spend on products of a particular business do not affect the business' behaviour. Thats patently false. Its a small effect obviously, but its an effect. You could argue that recyling household waste is pointless from the same logic (and people do, I know)

pitt1980 11y ago

Here's the problem I have with this (I probably haven't worked this out well enough in my mind to pursausively argue for it on the internet, but this is what goes through my mind every time I encounter this): - (all/most/many/some/ at least a few) problems are best solved locally, by treating the people around you as well as you can - you have the most control first over your own happiness, then over your immediate family's happiness, then over close families happiness ....... etc etc etc - you have almost no control over someone's happiness on the other side of the planet ----------- look, I don't want some kid in Côte d'Ivoire to be a child slave, but I'm relatively sure my chocolate consumption is a tiny drop in that bucket (though just typing that out made me want to use less chocolate) moreover, even if I stop using chocolate, his happiness is still far more dependent on the people local to him than it is to me -------------------- anecdotally, strikes me that the people I know who love to get on their high horse about normal western consumer patterns, don't put that much thought into being fairly miserable to the people that they actually directly interact with (I'll concede that that's not a fair generalization) ------------------- TLDR, it strikes me that treating people better that you actually interact with is the best way to make the world a better place

codeulike 11y ago
Its not that hard to do both. A drop in a bucket is still a drop. And if there are many drops, and they start falling in a different bucket ...
ksenzee 11y ago
Indeed. What you're describing is the principle of moral proximity: the closer someone is to you, the greater your obligation to help them.