Quote:Yes, so Zara and H&M are what I had in mind initially. I can understand if they have unethical practices, but I'm struggling to understand or conceptualize the transfer of ethics from the merchant to the consumer when a purchase is made.Funding exploitation makes you part of the exploitation. It's not that complicated.....
For example, imagine there are two boxes in front of you. You pay $20 and get to keep the contents of the mystery box of your choice—one of them has Zara shirts and the other has thrifted shirts. You pick a box at random and it happens to be the Zara one. Have you made an unethical choice? Has it hurt the environment?
I'm not sure if the analogy does what I want it to do. I'm trying to emphasize the boundary that exists between the consumer and the merchant by turning it into a blind purchase. The assumption being that if the purchase is truly unethical, your awareness of it shouldn't be what determines that.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
