Unethical Consumption and Obligations to Signal

Abstract

There are many different ways to try to bring about an end to the harms involved in the production of consumer goods. In this article I will start at the bottom, with the individual whose ordinary choices about how to travel, what to eat, what to wear, where to shop, and which policies to support all cause her to confront the possibility of involvement in these harms to the environment, nonhuman animals, and persons.Having dismissed the claim that an individual has a straightforward duty of justice not to consume unethically produced goods, in the second section I map out a few different approaches, all of which I take to be promising avenues for generating duties in individuals to consume ethically. I argue that the last approach is the most promising and spend the third section of this article developing it. Specifically, I argue that as a first step in collectivizing to act against unjust global labor practices, an individual ought to signal to others her commitments to ethical consumption. In section four I ask whether some signals are too cheap to function as a step toward collectivization, and defend the deliberate consumption of only ethically produced goods as a moderately costly and therefore reliable signal. In the last section I consider a challenge to the proposal in terms of whether it imposes unacceptable costs on consumers.

The natural duty of justice in non-ideal circumstances: On the moral demands of institution building and reform

“…First, for the natural duty of justice to require nothing, the non-compliancerelated pointlessness of one's efforts has to be genuinely foreseeable, from the perspective of a reasonable person, and with a high enough degree of certainty (Lawford-Smith 2012). Being in doubt about the future efficacy of one's actions in support of political reform does not cancel one's responsibilities.…”

“…21 Thanks to Keith Hyams for suggesting this point. For a detailed discussion of the duty to signal, in the context of ethical consumption, see Lawford-Smith (2015). 22 Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for making this suggestion.…”

Gender Bias in Medical Implant Design and Use: A Type of Moral Aggregation Problem?

“…A useful distinction has been made between top‐down responses to these sorts of problems and bottom‐up responses (for example, Lawford‐Smith , 316). Top‐down responses focus on the imposition of regulations by governments or by global institutions, whereas bottom‐up approaches focus on unilateral action by individuals.…”

The Social Creation of Morality and Complicity in Collective Harms: A Kantian Account

“…33 In the case of climate destabilisation, I fear that even after our best attempts to minimise our contributions and to protest, most of us can neither opt out nor make a difference. Animals cannot speak in voices we are willing to hear; the distant poor are distant and thoroughly disempowered; in the case of climate destabilisation, those who will suffer the worst injustice have not been born.…”

“…In some of the collective harm cases, such as factory farming or sweatshop labour, there may be ways of opting out: we are unlikely to make any difference as individuals, but at least we can vote with our feet and make a stand. 33 In the case of climate destabilisation, I fear that even after our best attempts to minimise our contributions and to protest, most of us can neither opt out nor make a difference. 34 In one sense, again, we are unable to alter our social systems and structures of collective action.…”