Sociology has principles? I’m being a bit cheeky but anything remotely resembling a sociological “principle” is going to be just axiomatic and likely in direct conflict/contrast with one or more other “principles” that are also axiomatic.
Every association isn’t a poisoned well, which is why this doesn’t follow.
Let’s make this very simple, a company with only two members: a CEO and a laborer. What this company makes is irrelevant for this discussion, we just know that the laborer does his job honestly and is a good person, we know the CEO does his job honestly but goes home and drunkenly beats his wife, and we know if we buy goods we benefit both people.
If I don’t buy these goods, both people lose their livelihood and suffer, with their lives worsening.
If we do buy these goods, both people maintain their livelihood and can continue forward with their lives as they currently do.
Is the act of buying complicit in the beating of the CEO’s wife? Is the act of the laborer remaining at the company complicit in the beating of the CEO’s wife?
Any answer other than “No” is going to lead to an incoherent value system because nothing done under the sun is untainted by human hands. It isn’t the act of purchasing goods that enables the beating of the CEO’s wife, it is the act of not stopping him or intervening in that situation that does. It leads to incoherence because if the CEO beating his wife isn’t the consumer’s problem, but the CEO beating the laborer is, all you’re doing is what they call in tort-law “arbitrary line drawing” because sheer pragmatism necessitates not attributing liability to your parents, and their parents, and their parents, and so on… for your actions. But pragmatism isn’t an acceptable substitute for ethics, unless you really don’t have qualms about centering your life around utility.
I forgot that every moral quandary comes in a nice, bite-sized chunk with clear edges and boundaries…
Sure, but this applies to literally everything? You could apply this logic to acts of good or evil, or the question of whether evil is even a rational concept.
Human society is ultimately, an entirely incoherent system of made-up rules and “axiomatic” designations.
It just so happens, that the axiomatic system I outlined is the one that most people adhere to. That’s kind of what the study of sociology is: a look in to all the crap that we made up about what it means to live as a person in a (particular or given) society, and how we act as a result.
I’ll take axioms that at least have internally consistent logic over ones that don’t, hence the mockery of sociology. Plus, this admission on your part just renders the condemnation of anyone being “unethical” as complete bunk. The simple yet complete defeater to any condemnation couched in
will always be: “Not according to my principles.”
Not even close, else every popular brand in America would be bankrupt with the amount of exploitive practices we know they employ…
Advertisers couldn’t care less who they advertise for or what they advertise. Advertisement is one of the most morally corrupt forms of business out there. Whatever they do isn’t for the sake of being good. If your morality aligns with big business then there’s an issue there.
The rest is a societal issue that’s world wide. There’s not one product you have in your life or food outside of farmers markets that’s not procured by questionable means. The fact people need jobs and money to survive puts them in a situation where they cannot change who/how they work.
Demonstrably false given the literal slew of evidence we have of advertisers “pulling out” of various deals with who knows how many different reputations in decades past due to things a figure said or did?
The U.S. consitution is a document full of the people who wrote its’ principles, as is the Bill of Rights.
Literally everything we’ve created in the history of humanity is determined by the principles of either a single or collective.
There’s no objective morality in the design of modern day society.
Modern day society says that what Blizzard is doing sucks, and it’s likely at least tangentially related to why she’s leaving. That’s all I’m saying.
You honestly believe that the advertisers didn’t know ? Seriously? How naïve does one have to be to believe that advertisers actually care? They only pull out if the damage is beyond repair and then when the storm has past they tend to go back. Advertisers are NOT on the moral side of good. It’s all about PR and appearances which is why Advertising is considering a shady business.
All of which are supported by a foundation of penumbral rights, which SCOTUS likes to obliquely reference from time to time when it needs, such as freedom of contract or right to privacy. Where on Earth do you think they drew the ideas of inalienable rights from?
I agree with this wholeheartedly, but that doesn’t factor objective morality out of the equation.
You’re speaking awfully authoritatively for an entire society that has no objective strictures…
Generally speaking, most corporate structure is at best neutral to the Good. I’m not saying its impossible to create a successful corporation in alignment to the Good, but given the inherent contradictions in mission and how we measure corporate success, I’m not sure it is possible.
Some screeching on Twitter, and some clear misbehavior from a few people working at blizzard, is all this is.
Define ‘modern day society’ and we can talk.
Because the majority of the world doesnt care if Blizzard replaces some art with a fruit bowl, or changes McCrees name, or talks out their backside about ‘diversity’.
People dont really care, let alone ‘modern day society’.
Here’s something to think about, what is “Modern Society”? As most of the world doesn’t adhere to Western “Morality” also that “Morality” seems to be “White Morality” which seems to be an issue as aren’t we supposed to be dismantling “Whiteness”?
I can’t even force myself to finish TBCC. I have overlooked a lot of blizzard’s mistakes but now they have gotten so over the top political that I am not even thinking about supporting this company ever again.
I think they should be shut down, but I don’t care what happens, I won’t be part of it any longer.
Something something Whiteness is a state of mind something something you and I definitely suffer from it something something no one can really explain why something something know that people hate us and we should change because reasons™
All is made up! But you definitely should only make up the things I like… All is subjective! But you should definitely go with the popular take… Just be a good person! But you shouldn’t question how or why this makes no sense given the aforementioned nihilism…
There is a difference between necessities, and luxuries. While I do understand there are unethical practices in our necessary consumptions, I also understand that entertainment is not a necessity. Turning your back on a game is not the same thing as turning your back on food.
I honestly couldn’t pretend to care about Diablo 4 after what a pile of garbage Diablo 3 was.
Not a fan of Overwatch because of it’s core design of hero swaps, tiny maps, no hero bans, and short match lengths, but I can’t just say it sucks - it doesn’t, it’s just not my style. It does what it intended to do.
This is just arbitrary line drawing based upon personal pragmatism.
Taken seriously, you’re advocating never purchasing a luxury good ever since there isn’t a single luxury good producer that isn’t tainted by some human folly or sin at some point in the process. We should all be ascetic monks lest we be unethical.
I never said they were, at best you’re misinterpreting, at worst you’re putting words in to my mouth.
They are not some kind of shining moral example, but they do have their finger to the wind, and there is a reason they make moves like that, because they know that maintaining affiliation with a certain set of ideas or principles can lose them business with “people”, who in general, do vote with their conscience.
My proposition is not predicated on the actions of the advertisers themselves, but of the people they are trying to perpetually impress or catch the attention/approval of.
This is also another instance of strawman, because I never said that there was one universal society.
I am the last personal to apply western morality universally, as I’ve actually spent most of my life (including right now) living in eastern countries, most with a different set of principles to that of the US or the UK, for example.
This very word, this concept right here? It’s a fantasy.
You can’t factor in a concept that doesn’t exist.
I mean all this says is you have a hot take about a gigantic mess you’ve read nothing about.
If rights are alienable, as you contend here, then there is nothing wrong, immoral, or unethical with treating you or anyone else unequally from someone else in a similar or equal position. If rights can be alienated, any right can be stripped for any reason provided the force behind the reason is sufficient to compel (for pragmatic reasons obviously). There is no good, no evil, only power.
Archbishop Benedictus… you sly dog you… I didn’t know you played a Druid!