4 ms·

People are fickle when it comes to adding ethical considerations to their purchasing decisions. The same person who will buy the cheapest meat without consider

by howlin 8y ago

People are fickle when it comes to adding ethical considerations to their purchasing decisions. The same person who will buy the cheapest meat without considering how the animal was treated will also vote for stricter animal welfare laws. In terms of worker's rights, I expect there would be more support for laws governing higher minimum conditions for workers of imported goods than there would be support for more expensive products that directly compete with cheaper products made by more exploited workers.

stupidbird 8y ago
>In terms of worker's rights, I expect there would be more support for laws governing higher minimum conditions for workers of imported goods than there would be support for more expensive products that directly compete with cheaper products made by more exploited workers. I think this is a good point, and is also likely why conservatives tend to prefer "minimal government" and "market forces." As a society I think we need someone to keep us in check as individuals. Note: This doesn't mean totalitarianism, we can come to the same conclusions democratically. This just means that socially we're more likely to vote for fair working conditions — but privately it's incredibly easy for us to be tempted into a choice that benefits us in the short-term and hurts someone else (or even ourselves) in the long-term. I know I can buy more expensive meat from farms that treat animals ethically and supports local farms. When I look at my bank account as I'm grocery shopping on a Sunday... I'm not buying the more expensive meat. I'm capable of it, but I'm also financially risk-adverse.
qwertay 8y ago
>The same person who will buy the cheapest meat without considering how the animal was treated will also vote for stricter animal welfare laws. A more expensive meat says nothing about how the animals were treated. Maybe it just means some business owner is making more money from it. Voting for animal welfare laws is much more impactful.

by howlin 8y ago

stupidbird 8y ago

>In terms of worker's rights, I expect there would be more support for laws governing higher minimum conditions for workers of imported goods than there would be support for more expensive products that directly compete with cheaper products made by more exploited workers. I think this is a good point, and is also likely why conservatives tend to prefer "minimal government" and "market forces." As a society I think we need someone to keep us in check as individuals. Note: This doesn't mean totalitarianism, we can come to the same conclusions democratically. This just means that socially we're more likely to vote for fair working conditions — but privately it's incredibly easy for us to be tempted into a choice that benefits us in the short-term and hurts someone else (or even ourselves) in the long-term. I know I can buy more expensive meat from farms that treat animals ethically and supports local farms. When I look at my bank account as I'm grocery shopping on a Sunday... I'm not buying the more expensive meat. I'm capable of it, but I'm also financially risk-adverse.

qwertay 8y ago

>The same person who will buy the cheapest meat without considering how the animal was treated will also vote for stricter animal welfare laws. A more expensive meat says nothing about how the animals were treated. Maybe it just means some business owner is making more money from it. Voting for animal welfare laws is much more impactful.