I'm really struggling with the idea that the responsibility to correct for corporate evil resides with individuals, and that failing to do so constitutes some form of evil itself.

It would seem tantamount to castigating individuals for not recycling "enough" when the true cause of pollution lies with industry.

It would seem a way for capital to coerce the pro-human and anti-capital to tear each other apart, causing nothing but self-inflicted wounds.

Then again, blithe oblivion to whence one's resources come also seems irresponsible.

But like, I have work to do that is more important than choosing the least impure tool every goddamn day.

@mttaggart

I read a really good analysis sort of in this direction the other day: https://mastodon.nl/@abhayakara/116251929650735281

In addition, I'd suggest that "evil" is not the right frame. Most of us imagine we have agency where we don't, and fail to take advantage of agency where we do.

In this case, deciding which tools you use is not a place where you have much agency, and you rob yourself of actual agency by wasting neurons on this.

Where most of have agency is in collective work on the system.

@mttaggart

A lot of this work is actually just figuring out how not to damage solidarity, because many of our cultural norms do that. We argue over ideology when we share the same values, and wind up failing to work together. We allow human cognitive biases with respect to hierarchy to bypass our own judgment when we could actually do something differently than what the hierarchy tells us to do, and that would actually be okay even to the hierarchy.

@mttaggart

I don't entirely agree with him either, but certainly his takedown of consequentialism was solid and helpful, and I think the method of analysis is good even if you might have somewhat different baseline philosophies.

Regarding the evil tools question, what I would ask is, why are you having this argument? It sounds an awful lot like people with shared values arguing over ideology, which is just a category error.

@mttaggart

Ideology is testable, or else it's garbage. There's no need to argue about it. Just test it, or if you can't test it, agree that it would be interesting to test it and set it aside until you can.

@abhayakara I think it's worth examining how we exist in the world for inconsistencies, and since we exist alongside other people with varying views and feelings, alignment on these issues kinda matters.

Here I've identified a common sentiment in communities in which I exist that is in tension with my intuition. So the "argument," such as it is, is as much with myself as anything. I'm attempting to arrive at synthesis and doing so in public in the hopes that my ethical struggle can inform others.

Ideology is testable, or else it's garbage.

The entire point of deontology is that ultimately you're ascribing to something untestable for moral value, so...no not entirely. Maybe it's garbage to you, but as I indicate, it's a framework employed by many, and so we must consider it.