4 ms·
> Claims like the one that "we" want what we cannot possibly have at the price "we" are willing to pay are tiresome. Who is this "we"? This "we" encompasses ne
by jal278 12y ago
> Claims like the one that "we" want what we cannot possibly have at the price "we" are willing to pay are tiresome. Who is this "we"?
This "we" encompasses nearly everyone living in modern society as a consumer. Recall a past motto of McDonald's: "Have it your way." Whether we're aware of it our not, this sort of message seeps into one's psyche. We become accustomed to convenience and adept at ignoring uncomfortable truths.
As a result we don't often undertake the dramatic life changes required for us to live in a way that agrees with our root moral beliefs. For example, it is difficult to morally defend factory farms if one is against needless suffering and would rail against someone kicking a puppy.
Imagine that whenever you wanted to eat an egg you first walked through where that egg came from, observing whether it was a relatively content free-range chicken, or one so crowded by other chickens that it is caked in filth. The suffering would be in your face, and so difficult to ignore that you might actually change your purchasing behavior to alleviate your own discomfort.
However, just because such suffering is out of sight -- hidden by the neat packaging we encounter at the supermarket -- does not mean (of course) that it goes away. In truth, most of us are aware of the contradictions in how we live (myself included) but do not change our behavior. At our core we want convenience and comfort, and also to minimize our own suffering and that of others. But too often we focus only on what is easier (convenience and comfort) and ignore suffering that would require us to surrender even a bit of that comfort.
- avz 12y agoI wonder if this apparent contradiction can't be explained by re-examination of one the assumptions we're making. Namely, we assume human being is a singular, consistent self with a coherent set of goals. Perhaps, we're not. Perhaps, we're a bunch of more or less independent modules evolved for different purposes and activated in different circumstances. One module seeks to maximize convenience and pleasure. Another one to pass moral judgements. By eliminating direct exposure to the way chicken are treated we keep the moral unit offline while the convenience-seeker in us gets the best deal. Vast literature from ancient Greece till modern day describe inner struggles that suggest humans may not actually have a coherent set of values and goals at all.
- foolrush 12y ago“Namely, we assume human being is a singular, consistent self with a coherent set of goals. Perhaps, we're not.” Perhaps? There is a solid twenty-five years of sociology that dismiss the collective “we” as nothing more than privilege and oppression. See Postcolonial theory, for example.