Question for people who believe there is a moral component involved in deciding where to spend your money: How indirect does the suffering caused by a purchase need to be in order for you not to feel responsible for it when you make the purchase? The example Ive been pondering: Is it preferable to buy a product that is more directly responsible for the suffering of fewer individuals, or a product that is less directly responsible for the suffering of more individuals? Assuming the amount of suffering per individual is the same. Say three monkeys had to die to make a monkey hair jacket. Or I could choose a fabric jacket thats created using monkey slave labor and grown on land that was once monkey habitat, so that 4 monkeys end up dying for every jacket produced. Curious how others think about this. Im wondering if theres a way to be more rational about it. Emotionally, Id certainly feel worse about wearing 3 monkeys in a jacket, but Id feel intellectually stupid buying a product more indirectly responsible for 4 monkey deaths. An incredibly rough and overly simplified example, but thats the gist of it. If I look into the products I buy (the electronics used to access Facebook, for instance), lots of them contribute more or less indirectly to suffering. I might not feel responsible for the suffering caused by a single purchasing decision, but when looked at in aggregate I start to feel concerned. Short of not buying electronics, or some other product category, how do you weigh the suffering involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and disposal of the modern conveniences were all accustomed to?
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:45:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015