It's a sacrifice, yes, but I can buy chocolate without being anguished that it got the blood of children from third-world countries on it. Doesn't everyone silently accept these things by living in modern society?
I mean, sure, some people love to pretend that they really care, but none of them sacrifice their own benefits, instead choosing, like me, to sacrifice the benefits of other people.
There's no dilemma once I've chosen a position. The dilemma is having to choose if you want to sacrifice your benefits, by for example not buying a smartphone, or the benefits of other people, by supporting the exploitation of other people through your purchasing power.
Yes, generally we do just silently accept these things. You're typing this on a PC or phone built using slave labor using minerals extracted by warlords to fund campaigns of oppression (despite some companies paying lip service to these issues it really still affects all electronic devices). When you are finished with them, they will be sent to Africa and burned in open landfills by hand to extract valuable minerals. Our oil market is based on dictators extracting their nation's wealth and using it to fund terror, in some cases literally on us.
Nobody in the modern world walks away from Omelas.
> Yes, generally we do just silently accept these things. You're typing this on a PC or phone built using slave labor using minerals extracted by warlords to fund campaigns of oppression (despite some companies paying lip service to these issues it really still affects all electronic devices). When you are finished with them, they will be sent to Africa and burned in open landfills by hand to extract valuable minerals. Our oil market is based on dictators extracting their nation's wealth and using it to fund terror, in some cases literally on us.
Let's grant this point. It's arguable, but I generally support it.
Another route is to use the very tools that are produced by these processes to subvert and upend those processes. For example, your comment is one such method of getting started by raising awareness and possibly redirecting behavior.
The same thing could be writ large: a tool like Twitter, for example, enables mass demonstration and a certain sort of transparency that was harder to establish prior to its creation.
We sometimes hear and say that X is not inherently moral or immoral, just how it's used. While I think that's probably not true, in many cases, the seeds of redemption can bloom from the soils of corruption. If we are inextricably enmeshed in a corrupt society and world, it seems then that the moral choice is how to subvert that corruption with its own fruit.
Most people aren't even aware of the hardships people in underdeveloped/developing countries have to go through in order to sustain our "modern society". It's out of sight out of mind. If everyone was more acutely aware of the suffering, then there may be more of a backlash. In short, people are too busy living their lives to know and consequently empathize with what's happening on the other side of the planet. But that's not the same thing as blind acceptance.
I grew up in America, and decided to go to Southwest Asia for a while. Seeing small children work is gut wrenching and something I had never seen or thought about till I saw it on my own personally. And it has certainly made me wary and selective about hiring any sort of service, even at the expense of my own convenience.
To sibling bobthechef, whom the site will not let me reply to directly:
Your question assumes a frame of atomized individual decision making, and forgoes the possibility of changing our political economy so that children don’t have to work.
This is easily doable from a production standpoint (i.e., we could all still have enough if children did not have to work, perhaps Bezos would have to give up a little).
That we don’t do this is an entirely political decision.
How about this: what would the lives of these children be like without that work? From your Western perspective, you judge this to be awful and evil, but what if the work they're doing is actually allowing them to make their families more than they could otherwise? What if it's the best option that currently exists? What if it contributes to increasing living standards in their country over time?[0] You can't look at a third world country through the lens of Western standards of living. A dollar a day is worth a great deal in some parts of the world.
The question isn't "why are some people poor", it's "why are some people rich". Human beings are born poor. We receive or make (or steal) whatever we have.
[0] Obviously, I am discounting political corruption that might keep wages artificially low.
You're being downvoted, but you're right. We've all had blood on our hands for a long time. It's funny how it means more to people when it's right in front of their eyes.
You say "none of them sacrifice their own benefits", but I do know people who make sacrifices to choose others' well-being, such as researching the products they buy, forgoing certain foods, products, and services.
So I'd say not everyone is "pretending to really care".
As long as they own a smartphone, I'd categorize it as pretending. It's like a slave owner who goes vegan. It's clear that they do not give up their own benefits, but merely pretend to, by making choices that do not really infringe on their core benefits.
"No ethical consumption under capitalism" is no excuse for moral cowardice. Sure, I live in a society, too. But I refuse to make these sorts of excuses for it. That's quite literally the least I can do. But it's not quite the same as doing nothing.
Capitalism isn't the root of this problem and I'm not being a coward, I just made my choice. Fundamentally, I do not have a problem with sacrificing other people for my benefits and I do not pretend otherwise.
If the pretense is important for you, that's fine. You can keep pretending that you haven't made the same choice as me, if it makes you happy. But your actions speak louder than your words.
With limited resources there's always going to be a struggle to gain more benefits than other people. Few people willing kill themselves to benefit others, but lots of people willingly kill other people to benefit themselves. That's just human nature and the root of the problem. If you'd forfeit your own life in a kill or be killed situation your position would at least be consistent, albeit really stupid. But no one really is like that, everyone just loves to pretend that they are good people, which I don't even take issue with. I'm just openly admitting to my human nature.
If you ask me in person, I will tell you the same. I won't give up what illusion I have left of online anonymity, however. Anything else you wanted to add to the conversation?
I mean, sure, some people love to pretend that they really care, but none of them sacrifice their own benefits, instead choosing, like me, to sacrifice the benefits of other people.
There's no dilemma once I've chosen a position. The dilemma is having to choose if you want to sacrifice your benefits, by for example not buying a smartphone, or the benefits of other people, by supporting the exploitation of other people through your purchasing power.