7 ms·

The answer seems, then, "No". These laws and institutions to enforce them do not exist in india, that's the problem They do in the EU, and this doesn't happen

The answer seems, then, "No". These laws and institutions to enforce them do not exist in india, that's the problem They do in the EU, and this doesn't happen. Markets are economic systems that separate people into amoral atoms that have no mechanism to turn moral agreement into general behaviour. Even if I agreed something should happen, my isolation from others makes my individual actions a form of charity and an injury to myself. If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses. Yet if all-at-once agreed, no business is making a loss with respect to another. I cannot really imagine what place libertarians really want to live in. They seem to think morality is an individual action radically isolable from cooperation with others. It isnt. The attempt to make it one creates markets for murder, rape, etc. as natural concequences of people's moral isolation.

hutzlibu 9y ago
"They seem to think morality is an individual action radically isolable from cooperation with others" Morality is allways individual action, as we are all individuals. Also if we individuals decide to form a group, for example for insurance and help those in need. "If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses" Unless it openly adverts about this practice amd people who do care, are therefore willing to spend more money on this company. This is happening a lot right now with organic food and other things (sure, some might only do it, for themselve - better food quality, but not all and even those still feel better, as they know they also help biodiversity and a enjoyable landscape) edit: and those laws don't exist there, because people don't care there. Laws are just another way of expressing the will of people. I just prefer laws to be the last way and not the standard.
- goatlover 9y ago
  > Morality is allways individual action, as we are all individuals. We are all individuals, but we're also very much social animals, and morality is a social matter. You're not born into the world knowing right from wrong, you learn it from others. When individuals make moral choices, they do so in a social context.
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    Ok, I believe we are arguing semantics here ... But sure morality is in social context, but still I choose to act moraly or not. That was my point. And I can also choose a different morality from the mainstream. The option to care for animals/nature for example is something quite new (or very old). And it changed, because people decided to care about it. And there are still many who have the old codex, that we as man can do whatever we want to lower lifeforms. (to which some include humans of different color/class/gender)
- mjburgess 9y ago
  Our bodies are physically isolated from others. Our emotions, ideas, etc. are not. When a crowd at a football game emotes, they all emote together.. inevitably and causally functioning as a coherent whole. Because the individuals cannot chose their reactions, they react the same way. They adopt a purpose, agency, goals and emotional structure that is only rationally intelligble when applied to the whole group. Morality is founded in this inevitable common reaction to circumstances which binds people together under common purpose. Isolating people destroys their ability to act acording to their moral desires... you impair yourself to be how you would wish to be. That's to say nothing of the mere collective action problems involved in any system of "mere individuals" whose cooperation cannot be guaranteed. NB. incidentally, (nearly?) all human success is founded in coherent group action. The individual is a stupid useless distractable ape. Only in concert with a common-purpose-with-others do we succeed. This is, after all, what a "business" is.
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    "When a crowd at a football game emotes, they all emote together.. inevitably and causally functioning as a coherent whole. Because the individuals cannot chose their reactions, they react the same way. " Definitely not. Only if I feel part of the group, I feel and emote with the group. But if I think football(or soccer) is stupid and the crowd full of stinking alcoholics, then you won't find me cheering with the group. I experienced both. But that's also why you won't find me near a stadium. But with society in a bigger context, it is not so easy to choose.
    - mjburgess 9y ago
      Yeah, you're a lone wolf. No you arent. You're an ape. You arent chosing anything you feel, including this rebelliousness which may have its origins in fear of unpredictable group emoting. I have that fear too, I am equally mistrusful of groups and of authority. But that mechanism is merely a feedback cycle into group emotional regulation. Your fear is just another tool of group cohesion. We are fundamentally a social species it is core to the construction of our psychology. Your dissent isnt lonefulness, in which you wouldnt even be commenting here.. your impetus to involve yourself with others is your group drive. Even if, internally, this seems "rebellious" -- rebellion is a mode of group interaction.
- ams6110 9y ago
  But who defines what "organic" means and who verifies that food labeled "organic" actually is? History has shown that absent any regulation and enforcement, if buyers want "organic" labels on their food, sellers will put "organic" labels on food regardless of what the food contains. Antibiotics and hormones? Pesticides? Those things are organic, under some definitions of the word.
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    My favorite-- even people without gluten sensitivities have been deluded into thinking it's universally bad, so they'll happily opt for anything with a gluten-free sticker on it... ...regardless of the fact that the product in question has no wheat component to it at all.
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    Ok, I don't know about the US situation, but here in europe we have different labels. One by the EU and other ones from various private organisations like Demeter(more strict). And it cost money and you get controls, if you want that label for your product - so that works as intended. And no antibiotics (unless sickness), no pesticides, etc.. Very clear defined. Also no genetically engineered food, even though I would not mind those. Basically everybody can make up their label, yes, but it has only meaning and value, if I trust that organization. And I do trust both the EU as well as Demeter. If there would be a new label, I would investigate if it is worth anything.
oldcynic 9y ago
Even Homo Economicus might change behaviour if presented with accurate information like requiring treated meat to be labelled as such. After all how can you make a rational, self interested, decision in the absence of complete and accurate information? Given the amount of industry resistance to any and all changes in labelling regulations I think both sides are well aware of this.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  Did you originally wanted to reply to my comment? Anyway, what I see right now is, more and more food companies in germany are voluntarily adding in more and more transparency about the production chain. Because people are more conscious about it and more likely to buy things, which seems more ethical than the alternative. And if they cheat, well, there are still things like investigative journalism and whistleblowing .. so most companies would not dare, I believe.

hutzlibu 9y ago

"They seem to think morality is an individual action radically isolable from cooperation with others" Morality is allways individual action, as we are all individuals. Also if we individuals decide to form a group, for example for insurance and help those in need. "If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses" Unless it openly adverts about this practice amd people who do care, are therefore willing to spend more money on this company. This is happening a lot right now with organic food and other things (sure, some might only do it, for themselve - better food quality, but not all and even those still feel better, as they know they also help biodiversity and a enjoyable landscape) edit: and those laws don't exist there, because people don't care there. Laws are just another way of expressing the will of people. I just prefer laws to be the last way and not the standard.

goatlover 9y ago
> Morality is allways individual action, as we are all individuals. We are all individuals, but we're also very much social animals, and morality is a social matter. You're not born into the world knowing right from wrong, you learn it from others. When individuals make moral choices, they do so in a social context.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  Ok, I believe we are arguing semantics here ... But sure morality is in social context, but still I choose to act moraly or not. That was my point. And I can also choose a different morality from the mainstream. The option to care for animals/nature for example is something quite new (or very old). And it changed, because people decided to care about it. And there are still many who have the old codex, that we as man can do whatever we want to lower lifeforms. (to which some include humans of different color/class/gender)
mjburgess 9y ago
Our bodies are physically isolated from others. Our emotions, ideas, etc. are not. When a crowd at a football game emotes, they all emote together.. inevitably and causally functioning as a coherent whole. Because the individuals cannot chose their reactions, they react the same way. They adopt a purpose, agency, goals and emotional structure that is only rationally intelligble when applied to the whole group. Morality is founded in this inevitable common reaction to circumstances which binds people together under common purpose. Isolating people destroys their ability to act acording to their moral desires... you impair yourself to be how you would wish to be. That's to say nothing of the mere collective action problems involved in any system of "mere individuals" whose cooperation cannot be guaranteed. NB. incidentally, (nearly?) all human success is founded in coherent group action. The individual is a stupid useless distractable ape. Only in concert with a common-purpose-with-others do we succeed. This is, after all, what a "business" is.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  "When a crowd at a football game emotes, they all emote together.. inevitably and causally functioning as a coherent whole. Because the individuals cannot chose their reactions, they react the same way. " Definitely not. Only if I feel part of the group, I feel and emote with the group. But if I think football(or soccer) is stupid and the crowd full of stinking alcoholics, then you won't find me cheering with the group. I experienced both. But that's also why you won't find me near a stadium. But with society in a bigger context, it is not so easy to choose.
  - mjburgess 9y ago
    Yeah, you're a lone wolf. No you arent. You're an ape. You arent chosing anything you feel, including this rebelliousness which may have its origins in fear of unpredictable group emoting. I have that fear too, I am equally mistrusful of groups and of authority. But that mechanism is merely a feedback cycle into group emotional regulation. Your fear is just another tool of group cohesion. We are fundamentally a social species it is core to the construction of our psychology. Your dissent isnt lonefulness, in which you wouldnt even be commenting here.. your impetus to involve yourself with others is your group drive. Even if, internally, this seems "rebellious" -- rebellion is a mode of group interaction.
ams6110 9y ago
But who defines what "organic" means and who verifies that food labeled "organic" actually is? History has shown that absent any regulation and enforcement, if buyers want "organic" labels on their food, sellers will put "organic" labels on food regardless of what the food contains. Antibiotics and hormones? Pesticides? Those things are organic, under some definitions of the word.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  My favorite-- even people without gluten sensitivities have been deluded into thinking it's universally bad, so they'll happily opt for anything with a gluten-free sticker on it... ...regardless of the fact that the product in question has no wheat component to it at all.
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  Ok, I don't know about the US situation, but here in europe we have different labels. One by the EU and other ones from various private organisations like Demeter(more strict). And it cost money and you get controls, if you want that label for your product - so that works as intended. And no antibiotics (unless sickness), no pesticides, etc.. Very clear defined. Also no genetically engineered food, even though I would not mind those. Basically everybody can make up their label, yes, but it has only meaning and value, if I trust that organization. And I do trust both the EU as well as Demeter. If there would be a new label, I would investigate if it is worth anything.

oldcynic 9y ago

Even Homo Economicus might change behaviour if presented with accurate information like requiring treated meat to be labelled as such. After all how can you make a rational, self interested, decision in the absence of complete and accurate information? Given the amount of industry resistance to any and all changes in labelling regulations I think both sides are well aware of this.

hutzlibu 9y ago
Did you originally wanted to reply to my comment? Anyway, what I see right now is, more and more food companies in germany are voluntarily adding in more and more transparency about the production chain. Because people are more conscious about it and more likely to buy things, which seems more ethical than the alternative. And if they cheat, well, there are still things like investigative journalism and whistleblowing .. so most companies would not dare, I believe.