Philosophy - Ethics - Are boycotts better public or private?

[gordonliddy]

Hello gang! Happy Sunday.

Today's topic will discuss the merits of private vs. public boycotts.

Are boycotts better if you tell everyone that you're boycotting something, or more meaningful if you tell no one?

 

[MedicinalUser247]

Well if you want to achieve a boycott you've got to tell people. Otherwise there no real purpose in just taking a stand by yourself.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Well if you want to achieve a boycott you've got to tell people. Otherwise there no real purpose in just taking a stand by yourself.

Sure there is

 

[Jabberwocky]

Hello gang! Happy Sunday.

Today's topic will discuss the merits of private vs. public boycotts.

Are boycotts better if you tell everyone that you're boycotting something, or more meaningful if you tell no one?

I didn't really know what to say at first, but today I actually brought this up off line because remembered this thread.

Was thinking, things like decreasing prices of companies that have lots of control over the market I feel would be better public. They need to know why their sales are down. Their analyst and CFO will be scratching their head for years otherwise.

I do think there is lots of value in having people know why you feel a certain way. Publically. Because they have any sliver of humanity, they'd understand.

My 2 cents

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Communicating the boycott to others means there is a bigger impact if they also join, otherwise most companies couldn't give a shit about losing one customer

 

[Jabberwocky]

I think so too and honestly a lot of managers are so one track minded that they might not even understand the social impact

 

[Foreigner]

In this corporate world, the corporations do not respond to silent boycotting because you won't be able to differentiate between a boycott and a lack of preference for their product. A boycott is meant as punishment, whereas lack of preference means you're just not interested. The latter signals to the corporation that they just need to market better. But a boycott tells them that they have actually done something morally wrong and they need to correct their corporate culture.

Therefore, public boycotts are way more effective.

 

[Jabberwocky]

“Are boycotts better if you tell everyone that you're boycotting something, or more meaningful if you tell no one?”

Something could mean anything.

But, yeah I agree. When talking about big companies/corporations, a public boycott would be more effective.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Effective and meaningful are not the same though, I just realized.

@gordonliddy what did you mean by meaningful?

 

[Jabberwocky]

I’m assuming this is exactly what he expected lol

 

[Jabberwocky]

I think that both have the same philosophic impact, but that it's a matter of degree. Subsidy the way that I think about it is a special case of tolerance. With subsidy, you're tolerating something potentially something that you don't like that might not exist without your support. In extreme cases subsidy means you're tolerating something whose existence is against one's best interests.

I sometimes think, when people confidently say "in this or that situation I definitely handle it this way" that they just don't know.

And to your point, I don't think saying "I'd never tolerate a noisy neighbor" is accurate for most people. Sure some just have no tolerance for some things, but I do think that one should at least allow for the possibility that things may go a different way than they think.

"Oh wait, but the neighbor brought me cupcakes? Okay yeah they can be as loud as they want!"

As I've gotten older I've been tuning out people who speak in absolutes on things that have many different levels and variations and such. I mean I'll listen and try to understand their view, but it's usually not really understanding and as you said - understanding is difficult. A lot more difficult than people think.