You could be forgiven for misunderstanding the intent of my first comment, and it could probably have been more artfully phrased to help avoid that misunderstanding. But I’m struggling to see how you’re not
now intentionally misrepresenting my second comment.
I’m not “clutching my pearls”, about anything. The first sentence of my first comment was meant—and only meant—as context for why my observations in the rest of that paragraph were a recent surprise rather than expecting my search would be fruitless. The rest of the paragraph, and the rest of the comment, could well stand on its own without that first sentence, apart from likely confusing readers about why I was window shopping on Amazon with the intent to buy products elsewhere.
The point of my comment was that Amazon’s interest in its consumer retail business is mostly in service of its other business pursuits, not a primary pursuit in itself.
My second comment clarifies that my ethical standards do apply to workers in developing countries, acknowledging that my available options as an individual electronics consumer are more limited, and that my choices are hypocritical nonetheless. I also alluded to other efforts I take to minimize my impact on those workers, but unless you’re one of those workers I don’t owe you an explanation of those efforts.
It’s possible I’ve misjudged your response, but my impression is that you’ve intentionally misinterpreted my clarification to bolster an argument that applying one’s personal values inconsistently is invalid. And there are several philosophical perspectives which would agree with that point or would at least raise the question. My philosophical perspective as applies to this thread is much more utilitarian: it’s better that I exercise my values incompletely thank not at all.
The reality is that the hypocrisy rebuttal to individual consumer choice tends to be used not to prompt more consistently good behavior, nor even to engage in thoughtful discussion about what a more moral framework of behavior would be. It’s used as a bludgeon to stifle discussion of one wrong by inserting it into a hierarchy of wrongs. In some of my past political circles, this was referred to as Oppression Olympics.
In those same circles, there’s another pertinent phrase: there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. The point of the phrase isn’t to excuse avoidable unethical behavior, but to acknowledge that some ethical behaviors are systemically unavailable to individual consumers.
The hypocrisy rebuttal demands, at least implicitly, either total asceticism or total nihilism. And it tends to encourage the latter because they’re equally ineffective and asceticism is more detrimental to any future prospects of becoming effective.
But like I said, it’s possible I’ve misunderstood your intent. If you’d like to recommend more ethical ways for me to buy electronics, I’m happy to engage further. Otherwise I’m done here.