[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

You could use the same type of logic to argue that voting is meaningless. And indeed investment is also a form of voting. One individual usually changes very little(except in this case one individual could make a tremendous difference depending on their net worth), but that's not necessarily a justification for doing nothing. Look up Kant for relevant philosophy.

[LionTamer]

> You could use the same type of logic to argue that voting is meaningless

Wouldn’t it be more apt to compare it to not voting? If morally principled people opt not to vote then the leader is chosen by those who are not morally principled, and the parent comment argues that if morally principled people opt to divest from tobacco then only the morally unprincipled remain as the shareholders in the industry.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

That distinction doesn't really matter here. The point is that no matter whether I vote or not, the size of the effect of my decision is roughly the same, namely 1 vote. Therefore the fact that I'm only 1 vote is not in itself an argument for deciding either way.

[paulryanrogers]

Buying and owning shares sustains what the company does. That's the vote. Shareholder voting is another more fine grained dimension, and one that requires compromising ones integrity.