|
It's immoral because it's dishonest - it feeds into the illusion of ethical living being possible. As an act, *buying* Fairtrade isn't immoral - *buying into* Fairtrade is immoral, and so the institution of Fairtrade is an immoral obfuscation. It's also arguably immoral because it's an attempt at making ethics a commodity, but that's a rather more complicated issue.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:It's immoral because it's dishonest - it feeds into the illusion of ethical living being possible. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Sometimes an immoral option is the best current option if every other option is even more immoral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Sometimes an immoral option is the best current option if every other option is even more immoral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Ethical living isn't possible? Not in capitalism!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Not in capitalism!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:That sounds rather like semantics to justify some philosopher's over-the-top declaration. Are you serious? Do you honestly think you always have a perfectly ethical choice in every situation you ever have been in and ever will be in?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:It could be, sure. And I would be in favor of better international trade controls to make it less an option and more of a standard state of affairs. However, I control only my own actions, not those of governments or multinationals or societies. Well it's a good thing that we both agree that democracy is a sham right now, but don't you think it'd be a good idea to try and create a real one at least? So that you do have the power to help people out like that, or even give them the power to help themselves?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Are you serious? Do you honestly think you always have a perfectly ethical choice in every situation you ever have been in and ever will be in? Ethics concerns itself with what should be done, so it has to be responsive to circumstance. A set of ethics that dubs every action and non-action available to you as morally wrong is just useless. namesake posted:Well it's a good thing that we both agree that democracy is a sham right now, but don't you think it'd be a good idea to try and create a real one at least? So that you do have the power to help people out like that, or even give them the power to help themselves? Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Apr 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
^^ 'I'm just one man!' is the cry of the lazy. The need for co-operation and involvement of the general population is a strength not a weakness and an unwillingness to engage in it unless you have dictatorial authority is a serious problem whenever you talk about fairness.Strudel Man posted:Ethics concerns itself with what should be done, so it has to be responsive to circumstance. A set of ethics that dubs every action and non-action available to you as morally wrong is just useless. This is assuming that the options being offered to you are somehow eternal and immutable and that no more can ever be created. namesake fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Apr 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
namesake posted:This is assuming that the options being offered to you are somehow eternal and immutable and that no more can ever be created. Presumably, you are implying that there is another option which should be taken instead of donating to charity. Is it "starting The Revolution?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Is it "starting The Revolution?" Is that somehow not an option? It's got a pretty good historical precedent when it comes to creating new choices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Morality is about what should be done in an ideal situation. We are often put in non-ideal situation. In those cases we choose the least immoral option, using the moral option not available to us as a guide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Morality is about what should be done in an ideal situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Ethical living isn't possible? Depends on ones point of view. You could argue living in an anarcho-primitivist commune is ethical living, although you're still knowingly not actually helping the billions in poverty, so you could argue it isn't as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I suppose I'll just say that this is not really my view of morality. Ideal situations occur rarely enough that it seems better to orient one's morality around realistic situations. Pragmatism is a false objective standard. You approach a situation with preconceived notions of what is 'worth' doing based on numerous external criteria, often massively subjective and changable, and take a course of action from there. Pragmatism is a rhetorical device used to eliminate opposing viewpoints from discussion in a group, not a rational approach to problem solving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
namesake posted:Is that somehow not an option? It's got a pretty good historical precedent when it comes to creating new choices. namesake posted:Pragmatism is a false objective standard. You approach a situation with preconceived notions of what is 'worth' doing based on numerous external criteria, often massively subjective and changable, and take a course of action from there. Pragmatism is a rhetorical device used to eliminate opposing viewpoints from discussion in a group, not a rational approach to problem solving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Kicking off the revolution that will permanently eliminate poverty is not in fact a realistic alternative to donating to charity, no. Rest of your post, right back at you posted:That certainly is a set of assertions. Seriously this is exactly what you've just done. Approached a problem with a limited range of solutions and then gotten annoyed when someone with a broader range is proposing a more complete solution and appealing to pragmatism, the intellectual brother of 'common sense', when someone defends this other option. Rather than attempting to unilaterally monopolise the discourse I suggest you at least think about the questions I asked earlier about Fairtrade being a viable capitalist solution. Any time that it raises some doubts, then you know exactly what we thought and then decided to check out this other path.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
namesake posted:Seriously this is exactly what you've just done. Approached a problem with a limited range of solutions and then gotten annoyed when someone with a broader range is proposing a more complete solution and appealing to pragmatism, the intellectual brother of 'common sense', when someone defends this other option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Sure it would be nice if we could stop treating other human beings as property, but our whole economy depends on it and would collapse. Let's be realists here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Not in capitalism! So what actions do you recommend for those of us who didn't post in LF and aren't third-wave Maoists?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Not in capitalism! Or under any other system of socio-economic organization yet devised! It's cool, though, because once you accept this, you can stop worrying about being a goody goody, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
Even if you are not some variety of anti-capitalist, even if you are a capitalist who believes in individualism, buying Fairtrade is still bullshit because the problem (from an "ethical" capitalist perspective) with the relationship between the first-world consumer and the third-world producer is not that the third-world producer is not being paid well enough, it's that the relationship between the two is one in which the economies of third-world nations are distorted by trade with the first world into shapes which are not beneficial to the third world. It's rational for each individual third-world farmer to make, say, coffee for export to the first world, but the outcome of every farmer in a given country making coffee for export is a country which must import its food (from the US, it turns out- our agricultural subsidies mean that our food can compete with local foods in the third world even after the cost of import!). This creates a system where the third-world economies are simply extensions or colonies of first-world economies, where there can be no real economic development because the value only flows in one direction: to the first world. And it's not just coffee; it's every cash crop, it's every natural resource, and it's human capital. Even if you don't see a problem with the capitalist system of exploitation and domination, surely you must see a problem with first-world nations importing things of value (cash crops, minerals, oil, cheap labor) and giving nothing significant in return.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
The obvious solution is for the 3rd world to raise the prices on their goods and labor. Yes, I know the difficulties involved in that, but their is something to be said for specializing in producing something that a country has an advantage on producing. There aren't many places in the US that can grow coffee for example. As it is, I try to make sure that as much of what I buy is produced in the USA of domestic materials as possible.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:This creates a system where the third-world economies are simply extensions or colonies of first-world economies, where there can be no real economic development because the value only flows in one direction: to the first world. And it's not just coffee; it's every cash crop, it's every natural resource, and it's human capital. Even if you don't see a problem with the capitalist system of exploitation and domination, surely you must see a problem with first-world nations importing things of value (cash crops, minerals, oil, cheap labor) and giving nothing significant in return. Thank you, this is the kind of response I was hoping for. It sounds like what you're talking about is a trade gap, and that is a serious problem, one that even free-market fundamentalists (which I am not) should be worried about. Frankly, I don't know what the long-term solution is. But Armyman's suggestions seem decent at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:So what actions do you recommend for those of us who didn't post in LF and aren't third-wave Maoists? Do your best, realise that it's not good enough (it will probably never be good enough) and if you see an opportunity to improve the situation, grab it. Accept this, and be at peace with it, but *realise* that you're not living ethically and act accordingly. Also combat liberalism whenever you encounter it, that's important. Heaven knows it's what I try to do. I don't always *succeed* about it, but I try and I very much recommend everyone else try as well  also not quite sure what a third-wave maoist is, please clarify tia
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:Thank you, this is the kind of response I was hoping for. It sounds like what you're talking about is a trade gap, and that is a serious problem, one that even free-market fundamentalists (which I am not) should be worried about. Frankly, I don't know what the long-term solution is. But Armyman's suggestions seem decent at first glance. Unfortunately once you move past that first glance you once again end up in Marxist theories and the necessity of abolishing capitalism. Ah, such is life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:Thank you, this is the kind of response I was hoping for. It sounds like what you're talking about is a trade gap, and that is a serious problem, one that even free-market fundamentalists (which I am not) should be worried about. Frankly, I don't know what the long-term solution is. But Armyman's suggestions seem decent at first glance. It isn't a trade gap. The idea that it is is why Fairtrade appeals to people. It is rather simply the fact that trade with first-world nations is conducted between massively unequal parties and thus is heavily distorted, leading to distorted and dependent relationships, and ultimately restructuring the smaller, poorer nations to the point where their economies simply cannot survive without ours. We are in effect colonizing them, siphoning off their resources for our own benefit. That is not a thing done between equals. It is an abusive and exploitative relationship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
King Dopplepopolos posted:Thank you, this is the kind of response I was hoping for. It sounds like what you're talking about is a trade gap, and that is a serious problem, one that even free-market fundamentalists (which I am not) should be worried about. Frankly, I don't know what the long-term solution is. But Armyman's suggestions seem decent at first glance. Yes all the fallacies about comparative advantage are still very strong when it comes to development aid and international lending. Specialising in primary materials was deliberately relegated to the colonies for a very good reason which is still apparent today. Hell, producing more of anything is pretty much only going to lower the market value of whatever it is they make and oligopolies on climates which make growing something easier are meaningless when they can be owned by foreign businesses who have used military force to overthrow governments seeking to take back the land or the revenues from those lands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:also not quite sure what a third-wave maoist is, please clarify tia He's referring to the Maoist third worldism posting from one or two posters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:It isn't a trade gap. The idea that it is is why Fairtrade appeals to people. It is rather simply the fact that trade with first-world nations is conducted between massively unequal parties and thus is heavily distorted, leading to distorted and dependent relationships, and ultimately restructuring the smaller, poorer nations to the point where their economies simply cannot survive without ours. We are in effect colonizing them, siphoning off their resources for our own benefit. That is not a thing done between equals. It is an abusive and exploitative relationship. A big part of the reason Fairtrade appeals to people is that they don't actually have to change anything substantial about their lives and lifestyles, which ironically ends up making the problems more entrenched because people think they can have it both ways. It's the same logic behind diet pills and schemes that explicitly advertise that users won't have to change their daily lives, even though it's those very lifestyles that are making them fat and unhealthy in the first place. This can be pretty much applied to any issue resulting from unrestricted consumption and capitalism, e.g. Global Warming, our healthcare crisis, education problems, etc. Each of those things has their version of buying Fairtrade which allows them to purchase peace of mind while not only not doing anything to substantially solve the problem, but also allowing it to fester because they think they've actually done their part and don't need to do anything more. E.g. buying a hybrid car, taking a few vitamins or eating some "superfood" once a day, buying your kid some Baby Einstein or other educational poo poo that's instantly supposed to make them super smart, retweeting some Invisible Children bullshit, etc.. People want quick fixes that mean they don't actually have to behave differently, as it is anathema to the philosophy preached about capitalism, where reckless consumption and obtuse selfishness are held up as virtues. Most people care just enough until it actually means they have to consume less, go out of their way to live differently, or change their standard of living. Can you imagine how many people would really care about any of these issues if it meant they had to carpool to work or use public transportation, exercise and eat better, actually spend time with their children teaching them and enriching their educations' on their own time, or stop/reduce consuming products manufactured with resources gathered from wartorn nations?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Even if you are not some variety of anti-capitalist, even if you are a capitalist who believes in individualism, buying Fairtrade is still bullshit because the problem (from an "ethical" capitalist perspective) with the relationship between the first-world consumer and the third-world producer is not that the third-world producer is not being paid well enough, it's that the relationship between the two is one in which the economies of third-world nations are distorted by trade with the first world into shapes which are not beneficial to the third world. It's rational for each individual third-world farmer to make, say, coffee for export to the first world, but the outcome of every farmer in a given country making coffee for export is a country which must import its food (from the US, it turns out- our agricultural subsidies mean that our food can compete with local foods in the third world even after the cost of import!). Oh God, I never even thought of this. Thank you! Can you recommend me further reading? Seriously. This is probably basic economic stuff, but I'm not an economist, I'm a critical theorist, and currently doing an article on Postcolonialisms in the Postmodern, so this kind of stuff interests me
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
Guilty posted:Oh God, I never even thought of this. Thank you! Can you recommend me further reading? Seriously. This is probably basic economic stuff, but I'm not an economist, I'm a critical theorist, and currently doing an article on Postcolonialisms in the Postmodern, so this kind of stuff interests me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
I honestly don't know. I've come to my understanding mostly through discussion with other people and internet articles. I'd like to read something on it myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
I was going to type this out, but my brain tried to escape so I'm just going to attach it. From a friend of a friend on FB.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Wow, ken has a few points (about congress and constitution) but just ruins it by having 5 really really stupid 'points' about everything else. I think I spotted what happened to the 'Land of the Free'. No sense of irony or hypocracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:Wow, ken has a few points (about congress and constitution) but just ruins it by having 5 really really stupid 'points' about everything else. I think I spotted what happened to the 'Land of the Free'. No sense of irony or hypocracy. Also, how do we "spend millions to rehabilitate criminals" when we've already "eliminated all criminals in America" by calling them "sick people"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Also, how do we "spend millions to rehabilitate criminals" when we've already "eliminated all criminals in America" by calling them "sick people"? And it really shows the effectiveness of propaganda because we don't rehabilitate criminals much at all. Really, almost everything in that article is a fantasy mixed with a persecution complex. Yes, white christian males truly have the worst lives in America.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
Durgoc posted:And it really shows the effectiveness of propaganda because we don't rehabilitate criminals much at all. Really, almost everything in that article is a fantasy mixed with a persecution complex. Yes, white christian males truly have the worst lives in America. Yeah, what's really funny to me is that I know so many conservatives who love Johnny Cash (I do, too) and think he was a bad-rear end for the whole Folsom Prison sessions thing, but at the time, Folsom Prison had an incredibly low recidivism rate because it was so focused on rehabilitation, low rates of violent crime within the prison, AND it barely cost anything to operate the prison. Now, Folsom has a recidivism rate of about 75% and it's part of what is currently bankrupting California. Here's a good article about it: http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843426/folsom-embodies-californias-prison-blues
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
some rear end in a top hat posted:6. THERE’S A REMOTE CHANCE THAT INDIANS WERE NOT LIVING IN A HIPPIE COMMUNE WHEN WE GOT HERE This one just cracks me up. None of these ever is all that intellectual, but wearing my archaeologist's hat, this one is so off base. The "accepted narrative" hasn't been mainstream for decades. Keeley's book was published in 1996, and it was coming on the heels of at least two decades of strong evidence contrary to the "noble savage" perspective. Archaeologists are the ones who found that evidence and presented it to the public, for gently caress's sake. The "modern world" in the mid-16th century wasn't really all that modern. And some Native Americans had wheels (the Maya made toys with them), but with no large domesticable creatures to use as draft animals, I fail to see how wheels would have provided much benefit to them. The best, though, is the "not racist" tag at the end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 14:48
|
|
