Are all (western?) people guilty indirectly of heinous acts?

Post Reply New Topic

Due to the way our economy works? If you eat meat, unless it's free range, and i mean REALLY free range, not just labeled that, or you killed it yourself humanely, you're guilty of animal cruelty. If you own anything from Nike, you are guilty of exploiting Chinese children. If you drive a car or contribute to pollution in any kind of way, you are indirectly culpable of murder because pollution does kill people.

Probably can't deny that. But in all honesty, I'm still going to drive my car and eat store bought meat.
If I can knowingly not buy products produced by sweat shop labor - child or otherwise - I'll do it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Yes, I think that we are guilty on all of those counts. But guilt is a dangerous thing. We must allow ourselves to feel a little guilt in order to spur us into action, but if we overdose on guilt we will be paralysed.

Your point is valid.

It's hard to exist in this world without hurting anyone. I wish I was a saint but I am not. I eat meat, I wear Nike, and I drive a car.

I think the biggest issues need to be taken down first though. My contribution to pollution is about .000000000000001%, so the policies need to be changed at a higher level. The same holds true for the other arguments.

Consumers acting upon the consciences can have an impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_sweatshops

It's hard for me to feel guilty. I'm here because my parents earned money, because my grandparents sent them to schools that existed because my ancestors helped build and supply them. Because of the complex system that exists, there is no way of doing anything without someone or something on the other end of the balance losing out. Every piece of cake I eat is a piece of cake not eaten by people in regions affected by systematic or cycle-based starvation. However, I'm not allowing myself to suffer a lack of cake in order to help people who clearly aren't helping themselves. As for animals, my conscience is practically non-existent if there's a practical purpose. It's impossible to have a fair and balanced world where all humans live to the age of eighty or more and animals have a good life, so I'll be content with being at the top of an unfair and unbalanced one.

Stating precise counts of indictments is far-fetched. However, what is certain is that many of our decisions are wrong and cause harm, and that these decisions should be changed, within reason.

I have never used a plastic bag for years, and never bought any of those reusable plastic bags: I use my backpack, which I always carry anyway for other reasons. I cannot avoid to use a car, since that is always someone else's decision (I don't have a driving license), but I always try to convince my parents to use another means of transport, never request the car be used, and use the bus, my bicycle, the train or walk. In general, I try never to buy things I don't need.

The problem with this logic:

1) Animal cruelty happens 'sometimes' with meat you've eaten. If we all stopped eating meat we'd be putting everyone - both ethical and unethical - out of business. Better to put passions in this regard toward better regulatory agencies who have not only strict standards but work with the ranchers and slaughterhouses on getting the most humane treatment for the animals at the least expense to these private companies - problem abated to a great extent.

2) Nike - it's a little easier to cite a brand name and boycott it rather than a whole category (ie. don't buy athletic wear or running shoes anymore as is your example with meat) but Nike also is a group of all kinds of people, all kinds of facilities; better to put pressure on Nike, perhaps threaten boycott and wave the public stakeholder wand but permanent boycott after they've corrected the problem would be pointlessly vindictive and would also put a lot of quite likely wonderful and loving people with no connection to Asian sweatshops out of jobs.

3) Pollution - If you drive you contribute to pollution, if you ride a bus you contribute to pollution, if you have a bonfire or light up the grill you're adding to global CO2 numbers, if you have electricity in your home that you haven't generated with solar power you're likely doing the same thing. Not to mention how many products out there that your 'killing people' by purchasing. When we start talking about things that take decades to kill people as 'murder' we're getting into a huge variety of things. You kill people with stress, you kill people with nagging and complaining, you kill people by hurting their feelings, you kill them by depending on them too much, you kill them just by doing things that get them saying "Your killing me" too often.

Beyond this there's the butterfly effect. I sneeze which startles a moth which sets off a flock of birds which fly through an aviary, get thousands of birds upset and flying, and I indirectly caused El Nino to have an extra added effectiveness in killing people in a given third world country. Am I responsible for those deaths? Am I even responsible for sneezing?

I guess I'm just saying - it seems like a pointless and masochistic way of thinking. A person can either take up a cause or choose not to, and perhaps if something bothers you this much (like one of the above issues) if you're going to beat on yourself about anything it would be for not turning it into constructive public criticism of the particular 'thing' or industry that you have strong reservations about.

If you breathe or move, you're guilty of increasing the disorder in the universe and thus contributing to its eventual heat death.

I am not responsible for the card I've been dealt.