Wal-Mart and more

[Nick Arnett]

On Feb 17, 2008 8:50 PM, Dan M <dsummersminet at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> 3) Are you interested in discussing what I just quoted and will requote:
>
> " The third is a discussion of the case at hand: if we (as I think we do)
> agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_
> worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those
> lives."
>

Reading down through the thread, I realized that no, I am not interested in
discussing that question because it is free of any ethical considerations.
It is a "modest proposal" sort of argument.

Ethics is not simply a matter of calculating whether the good outweighs the
bad.  There are some things that we simply don't do because they are wrong,
even though logic might strongly suggest that their benefit outweighs the
cost.  We don't eat our children to survive (an allusion to "modest
propsals," in case that wasn't clear).

The issue that concerns me is how Wal-Mart treats its employees and vendors,
not whether is generates enough economic benefit to the world to justify
that treatment.  To me, that is an amoral calculation.

Nick

-- 
Nick Arnett
narnett at mccmedia.com
Messages: 408-904-7198