jay_a2j wrote:
Already had that debate.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175364&p=3835425&hilit=petroleum#p3835425IcePack wrote:So greater perceived costs are an acceptable excuse for supporting unethical actions / inactions?
As far as availability of substitutes, there are electric cars out on the road. No?
While I understand the difficulty is much greater in one area (boycott a food source rather than a mass method of transportation) but if one is about boycott of an opinion and the other is about actual harm / persecution (and death), one would assume even though the PERCEIVED cost may or may not be greater, the boycott / change of activity for the persecuted aspect would be as good / greater of a reason to support that cause More so then the opinion? To me, boycott of chick fil a = surface level / easy, boycott of gasoline really speaks volumes ad makes me want to listen to what you have to say.
That being said, I do know OPEC has a monopoly and not all members are from those sources but the majority are and as I indicated, there are alternatives to OPEC products.
IcePack
Point One:
Let's take a computer. Its materials rely on the petroleum industry (plastic), and much petroleum is produced by government-owned companies (within OPEC, some of whom hate on and kill gays). So, should we stop buying computers?
It's not just about perceived costs and the range of substitutes, but also on the opportunity costs. Computers make people more productive and add value to their lives (recall the countless hours of debates here, viewing Kitten videos, learning from wherever, the cost-savings of computerized organization, etc.). Without computers, we incur the opportunity cost (i.e. we would forego the value of these benefits from computers).
For example, if it's morally impermissible to purchase gasoline for already stated reasons, then using motorized ambulances would be unacceptable. But the opportunity costs are high: motorized ambulances save more lives.
Should ambulances be electrically powered? If yes, then what about the production of electricity? That involves natural gas, petro-based products (many of which originate from OPEC), nuclear power, wind (which kills birds and disturbs crops by interfering with the wind), etc.
So, if we can't rely on the production of electricity, which incurs various negative consequences yet TREMENDOUS benefits, then what are the alternatives? Manual labor ambulances with decreased response time and more deaths? That would be a significantly worse alternative.
For me, on moral choices and ethics, it depends on the consequences, i.e. the costs and benefits--as experienced in the real world (to exempt myself from imagined philosophical problems).
Point Two:
What's the optimal extent of responsibility for one's actions? How far shall we reasonably stretch the cause-and-effect chain?
Saudi Arabia's monarchy, military/police, and bureaucrats are killing homosexuals (and others without good reason), but I'm not directly doing this, and (1) the chain of events between my purchasing gas at a local station and Saudi Arabian policies are much wider compared to my buying Chick-Fil-A* and their president/CEO funding anti-gay marriage groups.
Also, (2) my purchase of gasoline has a chance of supporting Saudi Arabia. This probability (which is unknown and probably can't be discovered by any practical means**) lends further support that I should be less responsible for the far-off consequences which
may occur if I purchase gasoline.
*(I don't buy their products because they suck. I never knew about their CEO's stance beforehand.)
**(Perhaps, an awareness group could research this and publicize their findings.)
Point Three (to add to
perceived costs):
When consumers are informed, they're marginally more responsible for their actions. Compare the unknown probability of gas purchasing aiding Saudi Arabia in killing people unjustly versus knowing that buying Chick-Fil-A will definitely aid in their CEO's efforts to fund anti-gay marriage groups, thus undermining gay marriage efforts.
Depending on one's normative stance, we can compare the moral consequences of either action, and for most people, clearly we can see a moral difference between the two actions.
