[Murky3515]

Should this be something that we shut down trade with Bangladesh over? If we continue to sell and buy stuff from a country that is gunning down its people over protests, doesn't that discredit any moral authority that we have? But at the same time, does it worsen the job situation and make the protests worse?

[ricc]

I assume that by “we” you meant the United States, so the question is: How much moral authority/integrity is there left to discredit?

[seanmcdirmid]

You could take the rest of the developed world as well, but the question wouldn’t be very different.

[relyks]

Shutting down trade will make life worse for Bangladeshis (and complications for apparel companies here). Textiles and garments are huge exports for Bangladesh and those industries employ many, many people there. I'm also of the opinion that the people of a country should be considered separate from its government and military (which may not have support from its people and be corrupt)

[panarky]

I hate the relativistic argument "if you stop doing evil thing X then something even worse than X might happen".

Because that argument is always used to justify doing evil instead of doing good.

And the even worse thing might not even happen.

The world is dynamic.

If you stop trading with Bangladesh because they mistreat their people, maybe they'll stop mistreating their people to get the dollars flowing again.

Maybe the fact that we continue trading with a brutal regime is what allows the regime to remain in power.

Maybe evil thing X is just evil and we stop doing evil instead of rationalizing the evil away.

[RicoElectrico]

Well, there were sanctions for Poland after the martial law of 1981...

[from-nibly]

"Moral authority" isn't a thing. Stuff is either right or wrong regardless of who participates or believes it.

Anyone who claims to have moral authority is just opressing others with their opinions.

"Should we do something" is a personal question, that my comment is not going to answer.

[harimau777]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that a country should embargo a country doing evil regardless of considerations about moral authority. Or are you saying that moral authority isn't a thing and therefore a country shouldn't embargo another country even if they are doing evil?

[from-nibly]

I'm saying embargo or not no one can claim moral authority when doing it.

Its not about the actions it's about the justifications.

[throwaway56757]

“…doesn't that discredit any moral authority that we have?”

This has the same answer as —

If we continue to sell and buy stuff from a country that HAS AND WOULD gun down its people over protests, doesn't that discredit any moral authority that we have?

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...]

It would be a worthy movement to lobby Congress/Parliament to sanction, via tariffs, countries whose governments suppress speech like that, but who’s going to start it, which critical mass of cheap-products-loving people in free societies are going to support it?

[hnbad]

Or, y'know, more obviously: Saudi Arabia. The country the West loves doing business with and doesn't make a show of demonizing for public appeal.

[linearrust]

A throwaway peddling anti-china propaganda in a thread having nothing to do with china? How shocking.

[throwaway56757]

Do you believe that the Tiananmen Square Massacre didn’t occur? If not — the parent’s question has to do with China because the parent is assuming free societies that engage in trade with China (whose governing regime has gunned down protesters) have moral authority to lose when, in fact, there is no difference between engaging in trade with regimes that would gun down its citizens who engage in protest (ie, Bangladesh) and engaging in trade with those that have and that would (ie, China).