4 ms·

I have refused to give Amazon any business of my own for several years because their directly-operated logistics business is morally disgusting to me. Realistic

I have refused to give Amazon any business of my own for several years because their directly-operated logistics business is morally disgusting to me. Realistically they run many businesses, that’s one of them. Their retail business is little more than branding. Their real business is private infrastructure. The retail business overall is a scam. Example: I’ve been trying to find a comforter for a while, and I haven’t been happy with some of the options I found because a lot of other ecommerce sites have not great search experiences. I thought, well I can search Amazon for my preferences and buy it elsewhere. Nope, not even a single filter I applied was true for any search results I looked at. Amazon didn’t even try to serve me cotton comforters, much less any other refinements they offered. They’re in the business of selling business. Whether that’s their logistics connecting suppliers and shipping with sales, or it’s their tech services connecting startups with time shares on a server. I wouldn’t buy a USB drive or a blanket from IBM either. It’s the same thing.

amelius 4y ago
> I wouldn’t buy a USB drive or a blanket from IBM either. It’s the same thing. Nobody ever got fired for buying a USB drive or a blanket from IBM.
scarface74 4y ago
> I have refused to give Amazon any business of my own for several years because their directly-operated logistics business is morally disgusting to me. Realistically they run many businesses So where do you buy your electronics from? Guess how the people who are making those are treated? Or is that okay since they are in another country?
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  Nope, it’s not okay and I’ll readily admit I’m a hypocrite. Because, as you imply, there’s no ethical alternative. And I could go on about the ways I try to minimize my impact with electronics too, but that isn’t and wasn’t the point. I’m not sure what your point is. That I should buy from Amazon because factory workers in other countries are treated poorly? What would that do for those workers?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    That you’re clutching your pearls because Amazon has factory workers who make $20/hour while your ethical standards don’t extend to people in developing countries who are making a subsistence living manufacturing your electronics.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      You could be forgiven for misunderstanding the intent of my first comment, and it could probably have been more artfully phrased to help avoid that misunderstanding. But I’m struggling to see how you’re not now intentionally misrepresenting my second comment. I’m not “clutching my pearls”, about anything. The first sentence of my first comment was meant—and only meant—as context for why my observations in the rest of that paragraph were a recent surprise rather than expecting my search would be fruitless. The rest of the paragraph, and the rest of the comment, could well stand on its own without that first sentence, apart from likely confusing readers about why I was window shopping on Amazon with the intent to buy products elsewhere. The point of my comment was that Amazon’s interest in its consumer retail business is mostly in service of its other business pursuits, not a primary pursuit in itself. My second comment clarifies that my ethical standards do apply to workers in developing countries, acknowledging that my available options as an individual electronics consumer are more limited, and that my choices are hypocritical nonetheless. I also alluded to other efforts I take to minimize my impact on those workers, but unless you’re one of those workers I don’t owe you an explanation of those efforts. It’s possible I’ve misjudged your response, but my impression is that you’ve intentionally misinterpreted my clarification to bolster an argument that applying one’s personal values inconsistently is invalid. And there are several philosophical perspectives which would agree with that point or would at least raise the question. My philosophical perspective as applies to this thread is much more utilitarian: it’s better that I exercise my values incompletely thank not at all. The reality is that the hypocrisy rebuttal to individual consumer choice tends to be used not to prompt more consistently good behavior, nor even to engage in thoughtful discussion about what a more moral framework of behavior would be. It’s used as a bludgeon to stifle discussion of one wrong by inserting it into a hierarchy of wrongs. In some of my past political circles, this was referred to as Oppression Olympics. In those same circles, there’s another pertinent phrase: there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. The point of the phrase isn’t to excuse avoidable unethical behavior, but to acknowledge that some ethical behaviors are systemically unavailable to individual consumers. The hypocrisy rebuttal demands, at least implicitly, either total asceticism or total nihilism. And it tends to encourage the latter because they’re equally ineffective and asceticism is more detrimental to any future prospects of becoming effective. But like I said, it’s possible I’ve misunderstood your intent. If you’d like to recommend more ethical ways for me to buy electronics, I’m happy to engage further. Otherwise I’m done here.

amelius 4y ago

> I wouldn’t buy a USB drive or a blanket from IBM either. It’s the same thing. Nobody ever got fired for buying a USB drive or a blanket from IBM.

scarface74 4y ago

> I have refused to give Amazon any business of my own for several years because their directly-operated logistics business is morally disgusting to me. Realistically they run many businesses So where do you buy your electronics from? Guess how the people who are making those are treated? Or is that okay since they are in another country?

eyelidlessness 4y ago
Nope, it’s not okay and I’ll readily admit I’m a hypocrite. Because, as you imply, there’s no ethical alternative. And I could go on about the ways I try to minimize my impact with electronics too, but that isn’t and wasn’t the point. I’m not sure what your point is. That I should buy from Amazon because factory workers in other countries are treated poorly? What would that do for those workers?
- scarface74 4y ago
  That you’re clutching your pearls because Amazon has factory workers who make $20/hour while your ethical standards don’t extend to people in developing countries who are making a subsistence living manufacturing your electronics.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    You could be forgiven for misunderstanding the intent of my first comment, and it could probably have been more artfully phrased to help avoid that misunderstanding. But I’m struggling to see how you’re not now intentionally misrepresenting my second comment. I’m not “clutching my pearls”, about anything. The first sentence of my first comment was meant—and only meant—as context for why my observations in the rest of that paragraph were a recent surprise rather than expecting my search would be fruitless. The rest of the paragraph, and the rest of the comment, could well stand on its own without that first sentence, apart from likely confusing readers about why I was window shopping on Amazon with the intent to buy products elsewhere. The point of my comment was that Amazon’s interest in its consumer retail business is mostly in service of its other business pursuits, not a primary pursuit in itself. My second comment clarifies that my ethical standards do apply to workers in developing countries, acknowledging that my available options as an individual electronics consumer are more limited, and that my choices are hypocritical nonetheless. I also alluded to other efforts I take to minimize my impact on those workers, but unless you’re one of those workers I don’t owe you an explanation of those efforts. It’s possible I’ve misjudged your response, but my impression is that you’ve intentionally misinterpreted my clarification to bolster an argument that applying one’s personal values inconsistently is invalid. And there are several philosophical perspectives which would agree with that point or would at least raise the question. My philosophical perspective as applies to this thread is much more utilitarian: it’s better that I exercise my values incompletely thank not at all. The reality is that the hypocrisy rebuttal to individual consumer choice tends to be used not to prompt more consistently good behavior, nor even to engage in thoughtful discussion about what a more moral framework of behavior would be. It’s used as a bludgeon to stifle discussion of one wrong by inserting it into a hierarchy of wrongs. In some of my past political circles, this was referred to as Oppression Olympics. In those same circles, there’s another pertinent phrase: there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. The point of the phrase isn’t to excuse avoidable unethical behavior, but to acknowledge that some ethical behaviors are systemically unavailable to individual consumers. The hypocrisy rebuttal demands, at least implicitly, either total asceticism or total nihilism. And it tends to encourage the latter because they’re equally ineffective and asceticism is more detrimental to any future prospects of becoming effective. But like I said, it’s possible I’ve misunderstood your intent. If you’d like to recommend more ethical ways for me to buy electronics, I’m happy to engage further. Otherwise I’m done here.