Questionable Ethics

[sidewalk]

polo

[Bobbin.Threadbare]

I feel like I deal with opinions like yours every day. I know there's no point arguing the point with you but I disagree completely. Your opinion that we're all just cunts and we might as well stay cunts is degrading. Sure our toilet paper, food, toothpaste etc might all be served up on a platter while people suffer but that doesn't mean you can't make positive choices when you're faced with them. I was born into this shit. I didn't make it. I have supported it in the past. I am better than it now.

What can be done is simple: don't be an asshole. Your point of view is just depressing. It's no different than telling someone not to diet because its too hard. Not to protest because the government will never change. Not to plant trees because you wont be around to enjoy their shade.

You sound angry, and now you've made me feel angry. But not angry because I think you're right - angry because I think opinions like yours suck.

[sidewalk]

polo

[Bobbin.Threadbare]

I know you're a vegetarian, I'm not focused on that really, but do you brush your teeth or wash your hands? Do you weep for all the bacteria thats killing? Why is the death of an ant never talked about yet we have people basing their dietary decisions around a cow and a pig?

Come off it.

Are you going to champion the bacteria? I cannot tell you how many knights in shining armour have come to the aid of the bacteria, fungus and plants since I stopped eating animals. Bacteria and animals are not equal. It's completely ridiculous to bring this into the mix.

I don't kill ants either. I go out of my way to never kill anything where I can help it.

You're taking everything to an extreme - something that really marks a weak argument. Saying you want to think about where your clothes are clothes are made shouldn't warrant the response you gave and my diet has nothing to do with your reverence for bacteria.

You like to argue and debate, I get that. I won't, however, do this so you can get your jollies and fulfil some kind of urge through philosophical posturing. I don't believe that YOU believe making ethical choices doesn't work. If you don't buy something made with suffering, regardless of whether or not it already happened, you aren't part of that process. The fewer people, the less likely it'll be.

I feel like your views would fit right in with the slavers who chortled: "Why end slavery - don't you LIKE your lace?"

[sidewalk]

polo

[sidewalk]

polo

[Bobbin.Threadbare]

If I keep replying to you, you'll keep coming back at me with more. More. More.

If i stop, you'll eventually have to stop.

That's the positive impact of choice. This is just a discussion, but it could have been any kind of transaction.

[sidewalk]

edot

[UnwashedMolasses]

But without slavery we wouldn't be on these computers talking about lace or something. Slavery has had, and still does have, it's benefits. If you disagree then throw all your shit out and move to amish town.

On a serious note: How do you or I prioritize? government and our society/capitalism itself (pros and cons aside) allows plenty of people to die torturous deaths everyday. It's not like there isn't enough food to feed the world, for example. People die of hunger because of a lack of money, not resources. I'm not saying you shouldn't be a vegetarian. I think it's great, I just want to see the impact before I believe you when you say it's for the better. Better to what outcome?

What even makes bacteria and animals not equal? They are all living things.

All other aspects of this aside, I'm curious what you think. Is "it makes me feel better" a legitimate answer? If all of the rest is garbage and existence as a whole is selfish and unforgiving and there's no objective morality (not disagreeing or agreeing, and sorry if I'm misreading your position, feel free to correct) then would an individual saying "I don't actually know if this helps or hurts anyone or anything but it makes me feel better about myself" be poor motivation? Or is that sufficient reasoning for making these kinds of choices?

On another note, do you feel that human's level of sentience (insofar as it can be evidenced/defined) implies that we have or should have some different approach to the way we live than animals? Going back to your lion/boar analogy. Lions don't have global economy and supply chains and minimum wage and all conveniences. They haven't created various systems of ethics to describe the world. Does our capacity to create the idea of ethics and values imply that we should consider them? Should we just leave all intellectualism as hypotheticals and instinct our way through life?

[oucho]

I agree that the prospect for major global changes that will stop the abuse of people, animals and the environment is probably never going to happen, that goes against all of human history. I still think you can choose to live your own life in the way that you think is correct and honest. Sometimes people are constantly looking for huge global solutions to everything in an instant, 'if I start wiping my bum with leaves now then will it save the planet forever? If not I shouldn't do it.' Personally I take quite a lot of satisfaction in doing things which I consider to be right which will potentially have no impact on anything, I didn't make the world the way it is and I can't change it but I'm going to live my own life the way I think it should be lived. As Voltaire put it 'Il faut cultiver notre jardin.'

[frogosaurus]

@sidewalk I don't think we need to have such a deterministic view of labor's evolution. Slavery wasn't "necessary" to get us to where it is today, and it's not necessary in the future. It's certainly cheaper and easier, but much more ethically questionable. It's not absurd to say that we could construct our economy in a way that isn't so abusive and exploitative.

And the argument that, because we all own computers, clothes, shoes, coffee pots, etc. that were made by underage / underpaid people in the 3rd world, we can't critique the system that allows for that to happen has never really held much water for me, sorry.

[sidewalk]

polo

[mc-lunar]

I think a good analogy is you're acting a bit like those people who pop into MFA or care-tags occasionally and say something like 'fashion doesnt matter and you're all dumb for caring about it.'

it's fine to think our efforts to make the world a better place are in vain but that doesn't mean you should come to the dedicated place for people who do think that way to talk about it and continue to derail the thread after being told that the way you're presenting your ideas isn't wanted

[Stingray Sam]

@sidewalk

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that saying that your philosophy is full holes is deriving conclusions that even the greatest minds cannot answer. Though perhaps I would be wrong to say that it is full holes, but I really can't tell when you're actually speaking your mind, posing questions, or insulting people. I actually agree with parts of your original post on the thread, though I disagree with the cynicism that you present with it. I too agree that changing your personal habits are really only for your own benefit because the amount of time and people required to create any significant change is far too much to change things for the better before we start having to deal with these catastrophes that are coming up (environmental and otherwise). However, my conclusion is that we should instead work to try to enact systemic change. I mean if the human condition is really so parasitic and miserable, why aren't we all offing ourselves?

[sidewalk]

polo

[Bobbin.Threadbare]

This thread has gone the wrong way. It has turned into mental masturbation when most people just want to talk about whether brands behave themselves or not.

[guardimp]

@sidewalk
Why do you consider the pursuit of good to be one of the only answers as opposed to trying to not feel bad? While they sound like the same concept the second is much more interesting when you talk of self harm and suicide. Suicide is one of the most logical ways to not feel bad, seeing as you cannot feel after you are dead.

Despite the two ideas being intertwined in the pleasure principle the two methods of acting are quite often at conflict. Similar to how people who wear experimental outfits take risks in their appearance in the attempts to look outstanding, it often is risky to chase pleasure. On the opposite side it is quite easy to look basic and not stand out, but you get little reward. Do you think that a persons general style or choice of outfits worn could be used as an indicator of their outlook on life?

[sidewalk]

@guardimp
1. That's the opposite of what I said.
2. I don't see why being an outlier from an incredulous norm would be representative of anything other than your interest in fashion. I also don't understand why you're asking.
3. Learn to tag

@Bobbin.Threadbare
This thread is mental masturbation in and of itself. You participated, so you're equally as guilty. Stop the self-righteousness and buzzword defining of things you don't like. There wasn't a post for over two weeks then you pop in to say some irrelevant garble. Is it "mental masturbation" because you don't accept that ethics is deeper than whether you believe something is right or wrong? You're equally as guilty of delusional grandeur as anyone else if you really just want this thread to be "talking about brands behaving badly", because then you're implying that we have to already have the same preconceived ideology as you to participate.

[absurdmind]

on a quick glance through this thread there seems to be lots of ennui. why cant we both attempt to reduce harm in our day-to-day purchases while we think and plan how to restructure society? since i dont think these two points are mutually exclusive i dont see why this thread can't focus on the former point. heres a question ive been wondering: is buying used clothing morally utilitarian (im not necessarily a utilitarian but its been on my mind anyways).

also im not sure what moral nihilists really believe. @sidewalk do you consider yourself to be a moral nihilist? do you believe there is semantic content in claims about what is good or right? i think many people who identify as moral nihilists are anti-realists but i dont think the two should be conflated (and i dont mean to patronize you here, thats just been my experience)

[sidewalk]

polio

[absurdmind]

@stingray sam
i think thats right, i know its at least a common sentiment in regards to the law so im sure theres some analogous position in ethics
@sidewalk
thanks for clearing things up. ill try not to be pedantic with my terms especially since im probably wrong but i thought moral nihilists were non cognitivists and denied that there was a truth apt 'sense'/proposition to moral sentences, whereas some antirealists still hold that there are true moral sentences. in any case, i agree that morality isn't like math in the sense that the rules that should generally be followed are necessarily routes to truth (or goodness) or anything like that.
i still have the same inclinations as others, ie buying from places that legitimately tend away from more exploitative labour seems like a righteous thing to do in the short term at least. boycotting places that are known to have sweatshops is a start.

q2 for care-tags: should we spend money on new clothes produced by relatively social companies as opposed to buying used clothes? i think the former might be a way to expand more ethical markets which seems good.
q3: is this a question that empirical data can/must solve? i really have no idea so id love to hear everyones thoughts.

[sidewalk]

polio

[Bobbin.Threadbare]

Give me a break.

[bobo77]