Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Money is usually earmarked for specific purposes. If you buy a movie cause you think one of the actors in it is good you are supporting that movie. The person playing the part may become rich and do things you "disagree" with, but so what? That's life and human freedom for you; you can't control everything. You are paying for a movie and encouraging them to make more movies. If they are breaking laws qua citizen or being a bad friend, that'll sort itself out.

Of course you are free to boycott them if you so wish, but boy do you need to boycott a lot of people if you apply this strictly. There are other systems in place to take care of this, which may or may not require additional work (such as justice system not being as strict with rich people), but that's a separate question.




If somebody told me "hey, I'm going to buy a gun and murder someone - would you like to buy my new album?" I would certainly say no. I don't see why it's any different when the consequences are abstracted a little.

No, I can't save the world on my own, and nor can anyone. I've done a good many things which have directly and indirectly resulted in harm towards others, because I need to in order to survive in today's society. But that's not the point - the point is to build an ethical framework in which we can aim towards intentionally enabling less harm, even if we can't ensure no harm.


You can choose to build whatever ethical framework you want for yourself. I personally prefer simple, robust principles or an "ethical framework" that doesn't require me to know or worry about every minute detail about everyone I intentionally or unintentionally "support". I wouldn't be able to get to work in the morning if I cared about what my neighbors were up to.

In more realistic examples than the one outlined I believe it's almost always the case that:

(a) people are doing a bad job qua something, such as journalists not having journalistic standards, etc, or

(b) people judging someone outside of their "known" domain almost always over-react and misunderstand (see witch hunts for people that should be dealt properly by, say, the justice system). I.e. the side effects are generally more harmful, at least if you impose it on others.


Unfortunately, life is hard, and if someone cares deeply about reducing harm in the world, it's harder still. You can very much choose to not care about people outside your close family, but that's not how I wish to live, and aside from as a mental defence mechanism against having to think about the horrors that people go through every day and how the system they're forced to take part in supports those horrors, I don't understand why other people would want to live that way.


You completely missed my point and somehow turned yourself into a hero for supposedly caring about all these little harms that no one else cares about (while still having to earn a living, of course). Thanks for putting words into my mouth that I never said. Classic empty virtue signaling.

(I should follow my own rule of never replying to my own thread outside of simple questions. It always bites me. Especially ironic how all the points in OP and my original comment applies to this thread.)


"hey, I'm going to buy a gun and murder someone - would you like to buy my new album?"

Sounds like the value proposition of white power music, or some rap.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: