3 ms·

It's always possible to make arguments like these, and their appeal is that they're impossible to refute. It's not evident that the conditions of the Filipino c

It's always possible to make arguments like these, and their appeal is that they're impossible to refute. It's not evident that the conditions of the Filipino cruise ship worker are worse than the Foxconn worker, the strawberry picker or the factory worker in Vietnam. However one should never turn moral consistency into a prerequisite for action - otherwise we get paralysis and inaction and nothing gets done at all. CP is perfectly able to reconcile voting with his or her feet on this and accepting that in other areas he or she is tacitly accepting slavery.

throwaway2048 10y ago
Most famously, this sort of non arguement was a classic defence of the soviet system when compared with the american one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_negros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_negros Being a hypocrite on these issues is basicly unavoidable in the modern world, but the critical point here is that does not make you wrong, nor is it a refutation that such things are bad and should be changed. Its just an easy trite dismissal to avoid examining the situation.
- jasode 10y ago
  >Its just an easy trite dismissal I wasn't dismissing the Filipino worker. I was trying to expand the discussion to other areas similar to the cruise worker. People may be unaware how many other workers in other industries the "slavery" criteria applies to. Or they are aware and don't care. I haven't taken a survey and don't know.
  - xapata 10y ago
    > aware and don't care I've heard a few people say, "America First," recently. I think everyone is at least mildly aware of suffering internationally. Refugees are big news.
jasode 10y ago
>It's not evident that the conditions of the Filipino cruise ship worker are worse than the Foxconn worker, That may be true but it's not relevant to my comment. I was focusing on the rationale given ("knowing the guy is a slave") and not the severity. >However one should never turn moral consistency into a prerequisite for action I'm also not advocating or justifying continuation of any economic evils just because one cannot have perfection of morals. Your last sentence finally gets what I wanted to discuss: "CP is perfectly able to reconcile [...] tacitly accepting slavery." Yes, obviously millions of people _do_ reconcile the inconsistencies that but it would still be interesting to dissect how people really think. If one is to loudly and publicly say that "I won't buy X because of slavery" but there are lots of other instances where "slavery didn't stop me from enjoying Y", doesn't that mean the more complete moral rationale would actually be: - "I won't by X because of economic slavery -- unless my desire for X is more important than the slavery." Doesn't the extra conditional clause at the end makes the public morality stance somewhat empty?

throwaway2048 10y ago

Most famously, this sort of non arguement was a classic defence of the soviet system when compared with the american one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_negros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_negros Being a hypocrite on these issues is basicly unavoidable in the modern world, but the critical point here is that does not make you wrong, nor is it a refutation that such things are bad and should be changed. Its just an easy trite dismissal to avoid examining the situation.

jasode 10y ago
>Its just an easy trite dismissal I wasn't dismissing the Filipino worker. I was trying to expand the discussion to other areas similar to the cruise worker. People may be unaware how many other workers in other industries the "slavery" criteria applies to. Or they are aware and don't care. I haven't taken a survey and don't know.
- xapata 10y ago
  > aware and don't care I've heard a few people say, "America First," recently. I think everyone is at least mildly aware of suffering internationally. Refugees are big news.

jasode 10y ago

>It's not evident that the conditions of the Filipino cruise ship worker are worse than the Foxconn worker, That may be true but it's not relevant to my comment. I was focusing on the rationale given ("knowing the guy is a slave") and not the severity. >However one should never turn moral consistency into a prerequisite for action I'm also not advocating or justifying continuation of any economic evils just because one cannot have perfection of morals. Your last sentence finally gets what I wanted to discuss: "CP is perfectly able to reconcile [...] tacitly accepting slavery." Yes, obviously millions of people _do_ reconcile the inconsistencies that but it would still be interesting to dissect how people really think. If one is to loudly and publicly say that "I won't buy X because of slavery" but there are lots of other instances where "slavery didn't stop me from enjoying Y", doesn't that mean the more complete moral rationale would actually be: - "I won't by X because of economic slavery -- unless my desire for X is more important than the slavery." Doesn't the extra conditional clause at the end makes the public morality stance somewhat empty?