3 ms·

Yeah, for example, let's say that I can buy from ShoeCo or big, evil Amazon. But big, evil Amazon allows me to donate a portion of their proceeds to a charity

Yeah, for example, let's say that I can buy from ShoeCo or big, evil Amazon. But big, evil Amazon allows me to donate a portion of their proceeds to a charity of my choice, and furthermore, I am also within my rights as an individual to take the difference between ShoeCo's price and Amazon's and donate it to another cause as well. Some will say that buying from Amazon simply perpetuates Amazon... but Amazon is so large at this point that it doesn't matter WHAT I do. So ultimately, is the world better off with my two donations from my Amazon purchase or giving my money away for the same product to ShoeCo?

SamBam 5y ago
If Amazon is so big that your purchase is meaningless, then the problems of the world are also so big that your donations are probably meaningless. If your donations have some tiny bit of meaning to them, then removing a tiny bit of business from Amazon and paying your local shopkeeper probably also has meaning.
- vdqtp3 5y ago
  > removing a tiny bit of business from Amazon and paying your local shopkeeper probably also has meaning. It might be fair to say that removing business from Amazon has no real impact but giving that business to a small business does.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Don't think that follows automatically. My dollar - in isolation - can feed someone tomorrow, even if it doesn't feed others and they're all hungry next week. Lack of my dollar alone won't change the ethics of Amazon in the slightest, and much as the more ethical shopkeeper won't mind the extra number in his bank account it's unlikely to allow him to displace ethical companies or do anything else wonderful with it. The difference between direct, tangible outcomes and perhaps more significant outcomes which depend on a lot more other people acting in a particular way is one of the thornier questions about what's rational to prioritise. tbh when I do boycott stuff it's mostly an emotional response (notwithstanding better objections to the original example: in practice most donors' finances aren't so tight that buying the $90 product rather than the $100 dollar one is really necessary to free up the donor funds for a worthy cause, as opposed to emotionally salve donor conscience for buying from an unworthy vendor...)
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Whether a business is local means little to me if the local owner is a spendthrift who mistreats or pays his employees poorly. For example, when I was a kid, the local video shop owner would hire high school kids at minimum wage and keep them on payroll right underneath the statutory limit for certain workplace protections before firing them. Should I reward that asshole just because he's local?

SamBam 5y ago

If Amazon is so big that your purchase is meaningless, then the problems of the world are also so big that your donations are probably meaningless. If your donations have some tiny bit of meaning to them, then removing a tiny bit of business from Amazon and paying your local shopkeeper probably also has meaning.

vdqtp3 5y ago
> removing a tiny bit of business from Amazon and paying your local shopkeeper probably also has meaning. It might be fair to say that removing business from Amazon has no real impact but giving that business to a small business does.
notahacker 5y ago
Don't think that follows automatically. My dollar - in isolation - can feed someone tomorrow, even if it doesn't feed others and they're all hungry next week. Lack of my dollar alone won't change the ethics of Amazon in the slightest, and much as the more ethical shopkeeper won't mind the extra number in his bank account it's unlikely to allow him to displace ethical companies or do anything else wonderful with it. The difference between direct, tangible outcomes and perhaps more significant outcomes which depend on a lot more other people acting in a particular way is one of the thornier questions about what's rational to prioritise. tbh when I do boycott stuff it's mostly an emotional response (notwithstanding better objections to the original example: in practice most donors' finances aren't so tight that buying the $90 product rather than the $100 dollar one is really necessary to free up the donor funds for a worthy cause, as opposed to emotionally salve donor conscience for buying from an unworthy vendor...)
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Whether a business is local means little to me if the local owner is a spendthrift who mistreats or pays his employees poorly. For example, when I was a kid, the local video shop owner would hire high school kids at minimum wage and keep them on payroll right underneath the statutory limit for certain workplace protections before firing them. Should I reward that asshole just because he's local?