Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is why I am never ever going on a cruise ship [...] Knowing that the guy serving you is basically a slave I'm not doubting your sincerity and principles but I'd like to go beyond this particular injustice of cruise workers and understand how consumers reconcile all the "slave" inputs for the other products they buy. In the USA, many fruits and veggies are collected by cheap labor from Mexico.[1] In UK, the anal…
It's always possible to make arguments like these, and their appeal is that they're impossible to refute. It's not evident that the conditions of the Filipino cruise ship worker are worse than the Foxconn worker, the strawberry picker or the factory worker in Vietnam. However one should never turn moral consistency into a prerequisite for action - otherwise we get paralysis and inaction and nothing gets done at all.…
That may be true but it's not relevant to my comment. I was focusing on the rationale given ("knowing the guy is a slave") and not the severity.
>However one should never turn moral consistency into a prerequisite for action
I'm also not advocating or justifying continuation of any economic evils just because one cannot have perfection of morals. Your last sentence finally gets what I wanted to discuss: "CP is perfectly able to reconcile [...] tacitly accepting slavery."
Yes, obviously millions of people _do_ reconcile the inconsistencies that but it would still be interesting to dissect how people really think.
If one is to loudly and publicly say that "I won't buy X because of slavery" but there are lots of other instances where "slavery didn't stop me from enjoying Y", doesn't that mean the more complete moral rationale would actually be:
- "I won't by X because of economic slavery -- unless my desire for X is more important than the slavery."
Doesn't the extra conditional clause at the end makes the public morality stance somewhat empty?