> Let's not gloss over the fact that we in the west do the same.
I'm curious where in the "west" you're from. At least in my part of the "western world", we absolutely don't do any of this.
Totally: Norway and Saudi Arabia are exactly the same in terms of humanism, it's just a matter of optics, right?
This in no way mitigates anybody else's issues, but that's an issue that I, personally, wish we could solve (and when we're done with that, maybe we can tackle the calorie laundering that goes on in that industry).
I think the problem is that in a globalised economy, a local issue quickly becomes an everybody issue. Am I less responsible, as a consumer, because the injury happens a long way away?
Of course, we are responsible most directly for our own interactions with other people. Less so with other people's bad behavior.
You go down the other road, there's an indirect connection to every person on earth. Refuse to deal with everybody and anybody because of that, you're paralyzed.
I get it, that was a rhetorical question. Mine is not a rhetorical answer. It's hard enough, dealing decently with the people I come into contact with. Struggling to make every problem into my problem, there's very little gain in that.
Before anybody says I'm callous and unfeeling, well, you'd have to know what I do in my own community. But few bother to weight that, at all, when they're playing the blamethrowing game.
"They enslave their children's children, who make compromise with sin"
I think about that quote a lot. It sets an unachievable standard. But I don't think it's wrong.
You want to seize on a cause, go ahead. That would entail work, doing research, sending letters, something! That I could get behind; in fact, as I suggest, many of us are doing something every day. And maybe get a little weary of the warriors who respect gestures over substance.
It is after all much easier to change hearts and minds in a democracy.