Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by delusional 411 days ago
Is that not true to some extent? I've always accepted that when I buy a pair of trousers that's a tacit support for child labor in Bangladesh, since I know it takes place.

I know this sounds extreme. For sure my part in it is way smaller than the CEO of H&M, but I do take part in the system.
1 comments
zahlman 411 days ago
> For sure my part in it is way smaller than the CEO of H&M, but I do take part in the system.

I think it's completely the responsibility of the child's employer (or whatever other term you deem appropriate), and I've never understood why others feel differently.

link
delusional 411 days ago
Interesting. Is this only the case for responsibility, or do you feel the same for any sort of downstream effect?

As an example of the same more general question, do you believe in consumer demand driving production?

I would find it very odd if you believe in downstream effects but not downstream responsibility.

link
zahlman 411 days ago
I believe in agency. If I pollute the air, I cause a negative externality for others. But if I buy a product from someone who produces it unethically, I don't cause that unethical production. If the producer can't offer me the same good produced ethically at the same price, that isn't my fault.
link
delusional 410 days ago
That's mostly the same point again. I was asking in the opposite direction. Do "good things" flow upstream?

In your example it would be: would the producer still be producing the unethically produced good without a seller?

Another way to form that question is the more general: does demand drive production, or does production drive demand? Will we buy whatever is produced or will we produce whatever we demand?

link
zahlman 410 days ago
>would the producer still be producing the unethically produced good without a [buyer]?

I don't think there's a clear yes or no to this, and I also don't consider this question relevant to my analysis.

link
delusional 410 days ago
Thank you for both correcting it and answering anyway, that's not a given on the internet :)

I suppose I understand. It's a denial of philosophical realism (he wouldn't do that bad thing if it wasn't for me and therefore I'm part of that bad thing) in favor of idealism (no matter if I want the bad thing to happen, he shouldn't do it). I suppose I hold that same opinion when I advocate for intervening in the market to limit the supply of "bad stuff".

I can respect that.

link