Morality of Boycotting
Well, I tried to post a really long article about the morality of boycotting. LJ did not like it, and I had to delete it (let's just say it was incredibly long).
It's posted here (please read it - but you're warned, it's long), and here's the relevant excerpt for LJ:
I posted last week or so that I was personally boycotting PepsiCo as well as CocaCola. However, it seems that PepsiCo is being sued for most of its alleged violations, and in order to act morally and justly, I should wait for the governments involved to render justice before taking action. I have written PepsiCo about my concerns, and I have reduced my consumption of PepsiCo’s products. However, I believe that a complete boycott would be neither just nor moral, since evidently PepsiCo is being sued for most of the problems PepsiCo is accused of. May justice be done.
Therefore, I am withdrawing my personal boycott against PepsiCo. I am not withdrawing the one against CocaCola; Coke is evidently engaged in some very shady conduct in Turkey and Columbia, and I think they should cease and desist from such behavior.
Understand, however, that I am also voluntarily reducing my caffeine intake for health reasons, so my consumption of soda is likely to drop despite my nonboycott of PepsiCo.
To summarize why: boycotting is ethical and moral, and indeed necessary when dealing with certain immoral or unethical corporations, but when the government is in the middle of taking action against a company, boycotts are premature. Should the government not take adequate measures in punishment of the company, then I might consider a boycott. In the meantime, my personal boycott of WalMart still stands, and my personal boycott of Coke still stands. These I have chosen to continue because of the egregious nature of the monopolistic excesses WalMart has inflicted on its suppliers and on its competitors, and because of the the inadequate nature of the judgements in Columbia (again, read the post here; the reasoning on why what they're doing is wrong should be plain).
It's posted here (please read it - but you're warned, it's long), and here's the relevant excerpt for LJ:
I posted last week or so that I was personally boycotting PepsiCo as well as CocaCola. However, it seems that PepsiCo is being sued for most of its alleged violations, and in order to act morally and justly, I should wait for the governments involved to render justice before taking action. I have written PepsiCo about my concerns, and I have reduced my consumption of PepsiCo’s products. However, I believe that a complete boycott would be neither just nor moral, since evidently PepsiCo is being sued for most of the problems PepsiCo is accused of. May justice be done.
Therefore, I am withdrawing my personal boycott against PepsiCo. I am not withdrawing the one against CocaCola; Coke is evidently engaged in some very shady conduct in Turkey and Columbia, and I think they should cease and desist from such behavior.
Understand, however, that I am also voluntarily reducing my caffeine intake for health reasons, so my consumption of soda is likely to drop despite my nonboycott of PepsiCo.
To summarize why: boycotting is ethical and moral, and indeed necessary when dealing with certain immoral or unethical corporations, but when the government is in the middle of taking action against a company, boycotts are premature. Should the government not take adequate measures in punishment of the company, then I might consider a boycott. In the meantime, my personal boycott of WalMart still stands, and my personal boycott of Coke still stands. These I have chosen to continue because of the egregious nature of the monopolistic excesses WalMart has inflicted on its suppliers and on its competitors, and because of the the inadequate nature of the judgements in Columbia (again, read the post here; the reasoning on why what they're doing is wrong should be plain).