The problem here, Lizon, is that the evidence you provide is often irrelevant and does not counter my position at all. Second, as you have offered your rebuttal to my points, you have also implied a commitment to positions that are so outlandish that they require you to defend them.
Here's an example of the first.
1. _
Incorrect. If that were the case companies such as Microsoft never would have had the success that they did. Consumerism is based on feeling, on branding, on trust of the product over it's competitor. This is the core of the consumerism economy. Ask any advertisement company about this and they'll agree with me. It's all about feeling and trust. People want to feel good about what they buy, products that aren't made in sweat shops or are environmentally friendly make people feel good thus have an advantage over their competitors.
_
Here you list different types of emotional motivations for consumers that drive the economy, which I agree with. Consumers want reliability and utility, of course. But except for sweat shops, nothing on that list has anything to do with the particular (ethical consumerism). Your point here is null.
Second, you did not even address the point I made. I basically summed up the ethical consumer, and you said "incorrect..." What were you trying to say? That there are no ethical consumers? Why not just say that rather than list irrelevant facts?
It's also interesting that you mention Microsoft, which is one of the most ruthless companies.
2. _
Incorrect. This is your personal opinion not a statical fact. You have had experienced in the past with such products being "inferior" in your mind. I've experienced the opposite. LED's, florescent bulbs, low power processors, Rechargeable Batteries, Hybrid Engines, Fuel Cells, new insulation products, radiant barriers, and many many more are examples of entire industries that grew out of the environmental movement. Furthermore the move away from sweat shops have increased automation, cut costs, and increased profits across the board for most clothing businesses. Organic foods have not been proven better or worse from their contemporary counterparts and are quite profitable. As long as people demand for those products then I see no point in denying suppliers from meeting those demands, I suppose it helps local farmers more.
_
This is also irrelevant. While environmentally friendly products could be ethically motivated, you also mention practical incentives for both the consumer and producer. Moreover, aside from product superiority, environmentally friendly consumers often mention that their motive is the security of future generations, which is a practical not ethical motive. Your example of automation replacing sweat shops is also irrelevant because of the practical incentives you mention yourself. If anything, you are only supporting the position of how utilitarian incentives drive innovation, which has nothing to do with ethical consumers. In the case of sweat shops, the move to automation may be removing an unethical practice, but again has nothing to do with ethical consumers.
But you did mention organic foods, which are no better or worse from their competitors. Actually, there are practical benefits, but they are few and my experience is that this market is primarily driven by ethics. This has to be the most relevant thing you said in this post, lol. My only comment on that is do you not see the insanity of paying twice the cost for a product just because it says says organic and involved less animal suffering?
*** Here's an example of the second.***
_
1. It's supply and demand, there is a demand for these products thus there must be a supply for them...
_
Here you are implying that your position is that if there is demand for a product, then a supplier should be allowed to satisfy that demand. Testing this position to an extreme, you would be committed to allowing nuclear weapons to be sold for profit because they are in demand. Furthermore, you would be defending British actions of selling opium to the Chinese during the Qing dynasty. But assuming you are not nutty enough to defend this position to its radical extreme, lets focus the question on whether ethical consumerism is permissible.
In summary, most of what you said was irrelevant because it did not address ethical consumerism at all, in the strictest definition. All most all of the examples you gave as being driven by ethical consumers could be written off as driven by practical incentives instead. Furthermore, you tried to defend your position with the principle that if there is demand, then a supplier should be able to satisfy it, but a commitment to that principle is unreasonable. So to have a productive discussion, why don't you give evidence that is actually relevant and/or focus on why ethical consumerism should be permitted?
In my case, I do not think ethical consumerism should be permitted because it's just plain irrational to pay more for a product that is equivalent or inferior to a competitor because it was produced by more ethical means. Furthermore, as can be inferred by the irrationality of the above example, ethical consumerism is inefficient. If you are paying more for a product when there is a cheaper alternative because it was just produced by ethical means, there is inefficiency. Considering that ethical consumerism is expanding, it may infect enough consumers that other less ethical countries will surpass us due to a competitive advantage we gave them.
>