6 ms·

Wrong. You are making the "all or nothing" fallacy. You absolutely can make the ethical choice when you have the choice. In some cases, you are simply forced

Wrong. You are making the "all or nothing" fallacy. You absolutely can make the ethical choice when you have the choice. In some cases, you are simply forced to make the lesser evil choice. Transparency is the first step. Yes, in some cases it is unavoidable, but to translate that into overall inaction, IMHO, is lazy.

DoctorOW 5y ago
That's reductive of my point. The overall being one's choices for a new smartphone are iPhone, Android, or abstain. When the parent comment elected Android for "ethical" reasons those reasons would not include the labor conditions of the phone's manufacture since that doesn't vary between most Apple and Android phones.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  > That's reductive of my point. > they wouldn't be able to purchase anything made by an international company I suggest you don't make sweeping generalizations, then. > The overall being one's choices for a new smartphone are iPhone, Android, or abstain. That's why I took care to point out "In some cases, you are simply forced to make the lesser evil choice." > When the parent comment elected Android for "ethical" reasons those reasons would not include the labor conditions of the phone's manufacture since that doesn't vary between most Apple and Android phones. You're not allowing for someone to still consider the ethics of an issue: it's not like subtraction, if A has it and B has it than neither have it, so why consider it. IMO that's reductive. It can still be considered.
  - DoctorOW 5y ago
    From my understanding, the factories that inflict these terrible conditions are shared between companies. The lesser of two evils isn't something that is easily findable. Apple's public controversy was specifically an investigation of Foxconn factories in China who have clients other than Apple. You've yet to convince me that the same workers in the same factories with the same terrible working conditions are somehow more justified if they're not putting an Apple logo on the products they manufacture.

DoctorOW 5y ago

That's reductive of my point. The overall being one's choices for a new smartphone are iPhone, Android, or abstain. When the parent comment elected Android for "ethical" reasons those reasons would not include the labor conditions of the phone's manufacture since that doesn't vary between most Apple and Android phones.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
> That's reductive of my point. > they wouldn't be able to purchase anything made by an international company I suggest you don't make sweeping generalizations, then. > The overall being one's choices for a new smartphone are iPhone, Android, or abstain. That's why I took care to point out "In some cases, you are simply forced to make the lesser evil choice." > When the parent comment elected Android for "ethical" reasons those reasons would not include the labor conditions of the phone's manufacture since that doesn't vary between most Apple and Android phones. You're not allowing for someone to still consider the ethics of an issue: it's not like subtraction, if A has it and B has it than neither have it, so why consider it. IMO that's reductive. It can still be considered.
- DoctorOW 5y ago
  From my understanding, the factories that inflict these terrible conditions are shared between companies. The lesser of two evils isn't something that is easily findable. Apple's public controversy was specifically an investigation of Foxconn factories in China who have clients other than Apple. You've yet to convince me that the same workers in the same factories with the same terrible working conditions are somehow more justified if they're not putting an Apple logo on the products they manufacture.