Consumerism in general is flawed.

"I believe that Ethical Consumerism is a problem, and it must be ruthlessly stamped out. Ethical consumers generally have a hyperactive empathy that is focused on issues like farm animals and sweat shop laborers, and these mofos will forgo high quality and cheap products for the feeling that they are being morally upstanding."

There is nothing wrong with this for 4 reasons:

1. It's supply and demand, there is a demand for these products thus there must be a supply for them.
2. Nobody is forcing you to buy these products.
3. Putting limits on how a product can be made or how it is made forces innovation and development. Things like florescent bulbs and LED screens wouldn't have been developed as quickly if even developed at all if it weren't for all those people asking for products that were environmentally friendly.
4. Since the US economy in the US is consumer based then it is only logical to use that base as a tool to set policy and agendas. It's only logical to do so.

"In other words, there are crazy mofos in the world that purchase products on the basis of a feeling that they are doing something morally good, rather than on logical considerations like low price and high quality."

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.

"The problem with ethical consumerism is that it is an expanding market that caters to an ever increasing number of idealistic, degenerate idiots. It may be more profitable for companies to concern themselves with making people feel good than actually deliver a product, but a broad market for the ethical consumer is a degenerate path."

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.

"Great nations are not maintained by timidity, and strength is gained by ruthlessness and strong utilitarian considerations. "

Wrong. Teddy Roosevelt said it best, "Speak softly but carry a big stick.". You can gain much more with kind words and good intentions than ruthlessly trying to stamp out opposition. While you should have the capability to do so if need be it should always be the last option. If you don't believe me just ask the Soviet Union what they think of the matter. ^.^

"In order to turn the tide of this degeneracy, I think the state needs to first place a ban on this market and correct the behavioral problems of ethical consumers."

Let the market do what it pleases. That's why they call it the free-market system. If you don't like it I know of some communist countries that would love to talk with you.

"They should be forced to drink milk and meat, and watch real time filming of sweat shop labor and slaughtering until they are no longer sensitive. Those that are not rehabilitated will be forced in to legalized sweat shop labor. Second, the state needs to guarantee that this never happens again. We must teach children that out-group empathy is for the weak, power and prosperity is good, and that to maintain power and prosperity ruthlessness is required."

So you would like to put limits in innovation, on your market forces, promote inefficient infrastructure, and inferior products and create a population that cares nothing for others? Talk about trying to ruin your own country. And one has to ask, what happens when that population that you've trained to only be looking out for power decide that you aren't strong enough for them. They WILL bite the hand that feeds them, because they know nothing else. Wisdom > Power.

sigh, Justinian, stop acting like a [beautiful field of daisies]. you completely missed lizon's points.

-entirely uncalled for

Actually, my points were completely glossed over. Talk about innovation and Microsoft etc were irrelevant. I am not saying that innovation is wrong, only that idiots who prefer a product based on its moral implications rather than its utility should stfu.

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.

Justinian, go work 80hrs a week at minimal pay in a sweat shop for a couple years and tell me how much you like it, I can tell you just love the world of the haves and the have not's as long as your on the have's side.

Lol.

> Justinian I wrote:

> The champions of ethics may mention the incentives of being ethical, like staying out of jail or having more friends. Ethical consumers may also mention the various externalities involved, but by itself considering the costs of externalities has nothing to do with ethics. In other words, once an argument appeals to practical concerns it ceases to be a solely ethical argument.

Then what's an example of an ethical argument?  Let's go to your exact examples from post 1.

> Ethical consumers generally have a hyperactive empathy that is focused on issues like farm animals and sweat shop laborers, and these mofos will forgo high quality and cheap products for the feeling that they are being morally upstanding.

Animal rights, I will concede: it is primarily a moral motivation.  However, there are definitely arguments that the way we treat animals is somehow a "first step" to changing behavior in regards  to treatment of other people.  I'm not going to get into this argument.  However, if there is a reason why something like animal rights possibly has a practical application, then in the eyes of the people doing the shopping, there are practical applications.  Either way, you have no idea, and conditioning is probably a stupid idea, since you may be conditioning a practical issue out of existence.

(Actually, I could make an alternative argument argument about animal rights for practical applications, but I would probably be laughed out of the forum)

As for sweat shop labor, that's been explained above.

And don't try to make some distinction between, "well, these people are against sweat shop labor for practical reasons, but those people over there are against it for purely ethical reasons."  You're proposing social reengineering of a society.  The burden of proof is blatantly on you to present arguments that outweigh even the most basic reasons why social reengineering itself is a bad idea (the wrong people are pushing the buttons).

Not to mention that the so-called "bright line" between two distinctions is about as bright as your first post.  You expect to examine every  individual to determine who holds a position on buying something for practical reasons, and who holds it for moral reasons.  What, do you want people to write a damn essay every time they go to the grocery store?  Write supply requisitions for a slab of meat?  I was going to make the "your idea is like communism" joke earlier... but wow... now I'm not joking.

<Here you are implying that your position is that consumers should not factor in costs to third parties in making their purchasing or selling decisions.>

> I am saying that if people are motivated by practical incentives to do something, then that is fine. What is not fine is attempting to change the status quo without having a compelling practical argument.

1: By addressing both examples you provided, I showed that there is a practical argument behind it.

2: Then give an example of this.  You mentioned sweatshops and environmental issues.  Fine.  I addressed those, and showed how they actually provide benefits to a society.

3: Until this post, you never made the distinction.  In fact, your previous posts clearly state the opposite, that externalities should be ignored.  I'm calling BS on you.

**********************************************
Here's the thing I want you to remember,  Justinian.  Flag this.

Morals aren't spontaneously generated.  In many cases, they are constructed because, at the time of their inception, there was a good utilitarian reason for their creation.  Although someone expresses a moral standard as simply a moral standard, there is an underlying justification behind it, as that moral standard is based on some old adage of utilitarian concern.  Two implications:

1: Morals have a use.  They work as a rhetorical expression of an issue, condensed in a manner which everyone can understand.

2: If you really want to change the system, fight fire with fire.  If morals are the derivative of utilitarian concerns, attempting to instill your utilitarian concern into a moral is the best way to ensure your stance is accepted.

"But except for sweat shops, nothing on that list has anything to do with the particular (ethical consumerism). Your point here is null."

Environmentalism isn't considered a moral issue now. 30 years ago it was considered one by the general society. People were scene as a bunch of tree huggers. ^.^ The early environmentally friendly products out there were inefficient and pretty crappy at the time. However people  started to migrate to these products over time. First it was the initial feel good feeling that they got from purchasing "green" products.  Later as investments and laws began to push these products more practical applications began to emerge. A whole new market erupted and is now considered mainstream.

So Environmentalism in the 1970's when the movement again was a "ethical consumerism" product. You are not considering historical context in your analysis.

"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?"

The incorrect was in reference to this statement by you:

*In other words, there are crazy mofos in the world that purchase products on the basis of a feeling that they are doing something morally good, rather than on logical considerations like low price and high quality.*

My response was valid in pointing out how a successful company can emerge from customers purchasing an inferior product. I was also pointing out how the whose basis of consumerism is how the customer feels about the product. Saying that people should only look at low price and high quality is an illusion on your part. It doesn't exist. These things matter of course, but it is hardly the most important factor when purchasing a product. You seem to have missed the point entirely on that one.

"It's also interesting that you mention Microsoft, which is one of the most ruthless companies."

It's also one of the most successful companies in the past two decades. There is no arguing that it made smart business decisions in both marketing and branding, not to mention a much looser licensing policy that allowed for their inferior product to flourish. If anything they are a capitalist success story that would not exist in your imaginary scenario.

"This is also irrelevant. While environmentally friendly products could be ethically motivated, you also mention practical incentives for both the consumer and producer. "

*sighs* You seem to have a problem with putting things into historical context. You are looking at how things are now in terms of the environmental movement. You aren't looking how things were when the movement started. In your world environmental products would have been shut down out of the gate in the 1970's and we wouldn't be able to take advantage of their benefits today. Your system strangles technological development and economic growth. It is anti-capitalist.

"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."

Again, I reference back to the social conditions of the 1970's. With your socialist mind control agenda this perception would never have been realized. Again your regressing, not progressing.

"Your example of automation replacing sweat shops is also irrelevant because of the practical incentives you mention yourself."

I refer you to the child labor movement around the turn of the century. At the time in the US the capital to develop automation and mass production processes just wasn't there. Why spend all that money to develop technology and processes when the current systems are profitable? In your world there would be no reason to and thus the benefits of these technology would have never been realized. I list the benefits now to show you what would have been LOST if your ideas were implemented at past times.

"If anything, you are only supporting the position of how utilitarian incentives drive innovation, which has nothing to do with ethical consumers."

Now, you think that but what I am showing you is how perceive moral movements can have practical application when given enough time to fully develop. Your missing the whole point.

"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."

When the laws against child labor and sweat shop practices were outlawed here in the states this wasn't the perception of the business community. They viewed the people that were pushing for these laws as a bunch of over-protective parents who put their moral beliefs above good business sense at the time.

"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?"

Actually the costs of organic goods are dropping a bit. At least where I live. They help the local economy. And if people want to pay twice for a tomato just because it's organic and locally produced more power to them. In a capitalist society they have these things. They are scene as a luxury item. Like imported wine or German cars. This is a product of smart marketing by the industry. Organic is now a luxury item. ^.^ Pretty smart on their part.

"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."

We're not talking about extremes. We're talking about tomatoes. -.- Only a nutcase finds a link between allowing for a local farmer to sell organic tomatoes in the local supermarket to selling nukes overseas. Talk about grasping at straws to win an argument.

"In summary, most of what you said was irrelevant because it did not address ethical consumerism at all, in the strictest definition."

Again, you only think this because you failed to realize the historical context surrounding the products I listed. In doing so you missed the point and made a whole post here showing why you missed the point. -.-

"All most all of the examples you gave as being driven by ethical consumers could be written off as driven by practical incentives instead."

Historical context again. ^.^;

"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?"

I already made examples, and you thought they were practical and thus would have been approved in the society that you suggest. Again, you omitted historical context and failed to realize that this wouldn't have been the case.

"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."

And in doing so reducing productivity, stifling technological advancement, and limiting economic growth. It's a recipe for disaster. Thank goodness you aren't running the show. ^.^

"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."

The environmental movements is a perfect example of how a moral movement became a productive economic engine that has increased productivity and product quality over time. The ONLY way you can counter this argument is prove to everyone here how the environmental movement would have passed your linpus test in the social conditions of the 1960's-1970's.

I don't expect you to be able to properly considering your poor knowledge of historical context thus far.