3 ms·

I agree with the general principle of your comment, but I do think there is a difference between some of your examples concerning the consumer's proximity to th

I agree with the general principle of your comment, but I do think there is a difference between some of your examples concerning the consumer's proximity to the exploitation in question. Someone who buys a coke in Brooklyn is certainly far removed from the actions of a Coca-Cola subsidiary seizing drinking water in a far-off land, but someone purchasing the services of a sex worker who has been trafficked is much closer, and thus partially culpable, for the wrong that has been committed. If fewer people are purchasing the services of trafficked women (I'm not talking children here...that's a different issue) then it is safe to say that there will be less aggregate demand for them and that fewer women will trafficked as a result. This is not to say that the sex traffickers themselves will be converted to an upstanding and pious life; rather, many of them would probably switch to another unsavory line of work. However, I would say that it makes more sense to use the change in number of trafficked women as the appropriate metric in considering the effect of a behavior change.

marvin 15y ago
Yes, of course, if you buy sex from someone who is trafficked, I agree that you have a large moral responsibility. Not only to not buy services from these women, but also to inform law enforcement. And hopefully trafficing would pay less and become less popular if a lot of people did this. I'm still skeptical to the degree that acts like these will actually lead to large-scale improvements in people's lives - as you're saying, the sex traffickers might find another way to exploit people and the consequences are really hard to quantify. Although some good could come from consumer pressure and boycotting, it's very hard to tell what the net effect would be. The way to get a real impact on the core problems here is to improve the cultural and economic conditions in the countries where exploitation happens. I guess my argument is that although it is comfortable to believe it, consumers in the West actually have very little power over the wrongs that happen in the name of economic development in developing countries. Having demand for the services of developing economies in the first place is, at least potentially, a very promising source of change.

marvin 15y ago

Yes, of course, if you buy sex from someone who is trafficked, I agree that you have a large moral responsibility. Not only to not buy services from these women, but also to inform law enforcement. And hopefully trafficing would pay less and become less popular if a lot of people did this. I'm still skeptical to the degree that acts like these will actually lead to large-scale improvements in people's lives - as you're saying, the sex traffickers might find another way to exploit people and the consequences are really hard to quantify. Although some good could come from consumer pressure and boycotting, it's very hard to tell what the net effect would be. The way to get a real impact on the core problems here is to improve the cultural and economic conditions in the countries where exploitation happens. I guess my argument is that although it is comfortable to believe it, consumers in the West actually have very little power over the wrongs that happen in the name of economic development in developing countries. Having demand for the services of developing economies in the first place is, at least potentially, a very promising source of change.