So the only businesses boycotted against have a corporate structure? And the poor slob working in the mail room who loses a job is an acceptable casuality?
Making Joe Secretary lose his job because the best job he can find is with a corporation that contributes to cause X seems pretty unfair. It’s okay to put him out of work because he doesn’t feel strongly enough in your cause to take a worse job some place else?
There are positive ways to change the world, you know.
Thinking back to the big boycotts in the early 90s against Burma (Myanmar) that included Pepsi and GAP, I have to say that I’d rather see a mailhandler out of work than a child being forced to build a railroad. Boycotts against companies like what Shell conspired with the government in Nigeria and those atrocities, I can’t see how the boycotts aren’t justified.
OK, with this argument, I can’t ever not buy anything because I might put some poor guy out of work. If I buy crappy plastic bags, I can’t change brands because some poor guy in the mail room might be put out of work. Along with performance and price et al., company policies are a factor in my purchasing decisions.
If I don’t buy something because I don’t like that companie’s policies, the money doesn’t go into a vaccuum. I buy an equivalent product from a company I do like. If enough people don’t like certain policies, that companies revenues will fall and the revenues of other companies will increase. Jobs will be lost at one company and gained at another. The boycotted company may decide that it’s policies do need to change and sales will rebound.
It comes down to consumer choice, if you don’t believe in a cause or boycott (such as the ones the OP listed), don’t participate. I’m confused, what do you see as a “positive way” to change the world? Legislation?
(I didn’t mean to derail this thread, but it’s been an interesting discussion and I honestly don’t get where you’re coming from.)
No. You said that corporations aren’t people; but, corporations are comprised of people. The legal entity isn’t a person, but the corporation is still made up of people and when you hurt the corporation, you hurt the people. Because of that your objection fails.
You may pick an egregious abuse which to trade off people for people; but, that objection fails because engaging in some sort of human rights abuse could be just as valid a reason not to hire a person. You can’t create an arbitrary distinction between two cases to claim that they are dissimilar.
I’ve heard of people boycotting companies because those companies donate to pro-life causes. But it would be immoral to refuse to hire a person for donating to pro-life cause causes. If it is immoral in the one case, then it is immoral in the other because these are similar cases—refusing to engage in business because one doesn’t like the other’s politics. Hence boycotting the company is immoral.