>as long as I'm not defrauding or directly harming others
I'm curious, why "directly harming others"? The argument here is that you doing as you please (selling critical technology to the Chinese) is indirectly harming others so I'm curious about the distinction you draw between when it's okay to harm others and when it's not.
> Also, it puts us in a morally difficult situation because we are benefiting from the ones we criticize, and as such, it is hypocritical.
What moral difficulties do you see? My opinion is these companies are despicable but taking advantage of their generosity is not hypocritical. Applications and motives can be immoral, tools without human action simply exist.
> Phrased differently, if someone advocates for a policy that I believe will be harmful, why should I treat that differently than a stated intent to harm me?
For the same reason you shouldn't treat someone who wants to raise your taxes and give it to other people as if they intend to steal from you.
> If you think the company is unethical, don't work for them
Why would I do that? My ethics are that companies that do unethical things deserve to have other people harm the company in some way.
That sounds like a way better way to retaliate against unethical companies. They deserve it, and it is a good thing to cause harm to groups that are doing bad things to others.
> I reiterate: Business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.
Given the controversy over the word "exploit", do you mind restating your belief without using the word "exploit" to make sure we all understand what you mean? Is this a fair restating?
> I reiterate: Business is about making productive use of someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.
>The thing is, you get no money by looking out for others.
And our definitions of harm can greatly differ, to the point where two groups honestly believe the other group is doing harm. While some of these cases can be resolved with more knowledge, some of them depend upon ethical guidelines that are entirely subjective.
One party can't exploit another without the threat or use of force. If no threat of force is present, then the relationship is voluntary and both parties should accept responsibility for participating in it.
> It might be better than the alternatives but it’s still exploitation.
If a man one thousand years from the future came to visit you, he may very well consider your standard of living absolutely deplorable. But that wouldn't mean you are being exploited. Since no force is being used. See above.
> I simply cannot comprehend how you cannot have empathy in such a situation.
Why would I have empathy for either party in a business transaction? What? This is business. It is as much business for Foxconn as it is for their employees. Let them hash it out.
> > For some people this money could be incredibly important.
> That's exactly the problem.
I thoroughly disagree, and I feel like speaking up about this particular philosophy of consent.
If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically? Whereas if I bought it from someone who didn't really need the $100, I wouldn't be acting unethically?
This sounds not only wrong, but highly counter-productive to me, since the consequence of not entering into this trade, just because the seller really needs the money, is that the seller dies. How does that make any of us better off?
As a society, we should encourage trading with people who really need the money, not label it as unethical. Whether a trade is unethical or not can be determined solely from the trade itself, not how much either (or both of the parties) needs the proceeds from the trade.
Example illustrating the absurdity: imagine two people who both really need the proceeds trading with each other. Ouch! According to your philosophy, they are both acting unethically (when in fact they are doing the only reasonable thing).
> If you claim to believe it is immoral to do something and then do business in spite of that, it directly puts the lie to your claim.
Not necessarily, doing business with someone means purchasing their services or products, it doesn't mean I agree with everything they do (with that money). Business is not charity.
Otherwise I probably wouldn't be able to buy half my black metal collection :)
> I'm not mad at the guy, he can do whatever he wants. It's just kind of a crappy thing to do knowingly to other people and, if widespread, could have some strange externalities.
I'm confused by this. According to this logic, it's a crappy thing to do to undercut anyone, ever, in any circumstance. Is that what you think?
> ...non-profit... no one can really stop you from skipping, but it would look bad on you
No it won't. Unless you have obligations.
> Along the same token, you obviously shouldn't steal from the non-profit, or say randomly beat up the customers/clients.
That's unrelated, to say the least. You obviously shouldn't steal from anyone nor beat up anyone, that's not related to this specific case at all.
> Just because you are doing things for free does not mean you don't have social responsibility for your actions.
No. No one forced the society to use the work that somebody was doing for free. And if society decided that it's fine to use it, it's on the society to take the associated risks. Everything else is a good will of the maintainer.
I'm curious, why "directly harming others"? The argument here is that you doing as you please (selling critical technology to the Chinese) is indirectly harming others so I'm curious about the distinction you draw between when it's okay to harm others and when it's not.
reply