>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 commen

>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?