Ethics of Fashion

[John 6IX Breezy]

Funding exploitation makes you part of the exploitation. It's not that complicated.....

Terms like funding, supporting, and sponsoring all imply that the transaction functions more like a donation in which there isn't an exchange of goods.

If I purchase an apple from you for $10, am I ethically responsible for the pack of cigarettes you subsequently bought with that money?

[Foxaèr]

......and thrifting is ethically superior.

......

Unless you specifically purchase new from a vendor where you know the clothing is more ethical, you could still unknowingly purchase a vintage piece of clothing from a thrift store that was made in a sweat shop.

Thrifting is generally just a pretentious way of being a hipster.

[Fireball]

If it includes signifiers, pre-decided by others, for how we show our personalities to the world, then no one is immune. 

The pants say "yoga"; the butt says "McDonalds".

Well, that's funny, right there! Not a view I want to see, though.

As for clothing, I wear work clothes, mostly. I wear them until the burn holes from welding are to the point where public decency might be an issue, in spite of the fact that I'm decent-looking with or without clothes. I don't have to wear suits and/or ties anymore. I have a drawer filled with ties. Maybe I'll have my wife make some sort of a quilt out of them. I just piled all my dress shirts into my hamper. I haven't worn them in years. Ima launder and then donate them.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I have a drawer filled with ties. Maybe I'll have my wife make some sort of a quilt out of them. I just piled all my dress shirts into my hamper. I haven't worn them in years. Ima launder and then donate them.

I think this is where consumer decisions matter most. Once an article of clothing is in your position that is when you become ethically responsible for them. Choosing to repurpose, donate, or sell them rather than throwing them away determines the effect you have.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Funding exploitation makes you part of the exploitation. It's not that complicated.....

Terms like funding, supporting, and sponsoring all imply that the transaction functions more like a donation in which there isn't an exchange of goods.

If I purchase an apple from you for $10, am I ethically responsible for the pack of cigarettes you subsequently bought with that money?

1. Donation can be an exchange of goods what do think buying girl scout cookies is? But your wrong anyway as funding is any form of infusing money into an organization. So this objection doesn't work.


2. This analogy doesn't work either so let's fix it. If you bought an apple from me and I run orchards that essentially run on slave labor and I'm being enriched by the money from your purchase then you indeed have a hand in the exploitation. No customers No money No business No slave laborers. Again it's not complicated....

[The Architect Of Fate]

Unless you specifically purchase new from a vendor where you know the clothing is more ethical, you could still unknowingly purchase a vintage piece of clothing from a thrift store that was made in a sweat shop.

Thrifting is generally just a pretentious way of being a hipster.

Also, shops can be awful in their own right 

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/12/16...-donations

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think this is where consumer decisions matter most. Once an article of clothing is in your position that is when you become ethically responsible for them. Choosing to repurpose, donate, or sell them rather than throwing them away determines the effect you have.

Nope from start to finish, you are responsible. If you buy from unethical groups you are responsible for continuing their unethical business and enriching the people doing the unethical business.

[Angrboda]

Let's put another analogy on the table. You're a U.S. senator and you're tasked with voting on a bill that contains some good things and some bad things. If you vote yes because of the good things, are you ethically obligated to take responsibility for the bad things. If you vote no, are you unethically denying your constituents things that are in their interest in the good parts of the bill. Can purchases not be similar, a mixed bag in which you're only signing on to responsibility for the good that results?

[Belacqua]

If I purchase an apple from you for $10, am I ethically responsible for the pack of cigarettes you subsequently bought with that money?

In a small-scale example like the apple and cigarettes, I don't think I have a responsibility to quiz the fruit stand guy whether he's living a healthy lifestyle. It's no practical to submit questionnaires to vendors. 

In larger scale cases, though, we should probably look both ways: how the goods were produced and what is done with the profits. 

It's probably easier in most cases to think about how the product got to market. So I know that fast fashion companies underpay workers, steal designs, and trash unsold products in a way that's bad for the environment. It's less obvious to me what happens to the profits. Does Mr. Zara fly his private plane everywhere? Is he funding Neo-Nazis? If I knew these things they'd factor into my decision. 

In some cases we do know where the profits go. Oil companies spend millions on climate change denial, or on lawyers to avoid paying penalties for pollution. 

Some companies use their profits as propaganda. You know the Sackler Galleries in many museums around America, where lovely art exhibitions are sponsored. These are made possible by profits from America's opioid addiction. Before that it was Phillip Morris plastering its name all over shows at the Whitney and the Guggenheim. I think this has been stopped now, since hating cigarettes has become widespread. 

It's hard to know details, and it's hard to avoid using some companies. But the more aware we are the better.

[Belacqua]

Unless you specifically purchase new from a vendor where you know the clothing is more ethical, you could still unknowingly purchase a vintage piece of clothing from a thrift store that was made in a sweat shop.

Thrifting is generally just a pretentious way of being a hipster.

I think people buying in thrift stores know that the used stuff may have been produced unethically. The point is that this damage has already been done.

If you buy something used, the damage has been done once. If you buy something new, it has been done again. The goal is to reduce the damage. 

And it's certainly not pretentious to buy used. Don't be a snob. Well-made clothes can last a very long time. Clothes from people who died or got too fat should certainly be passed on to people who can use and enjoy them. It's the garbage clothes that only last one season that do the most harm. Designer stuff, while questionably ethical up front, is often well made enough to pass through several owners -- thus giving people a chance to have nice things without increasing the load on sweatshop workers.