Too Much Information
How Global Interconnectivity Enhances Our Sense of Moral Wrongdoing
Actions have consequences. Early in life, everyone is taught that behaving in a certain way is necessary, and for the most part we do so to avoid punishment or other ostensible infringements on our happiness. Moral dilemmas still abound throughout the course of life, however — a fact which is generally unavoidable, with the small comfort that the choices we make are limited in their impacts to the general sphere within which we operate.
As it has with every other facet of everyday life in the modern world, the increase in global interconnectivity in the last thirty-odd years has changed our understanding of actions and consequences: the realm in which we make decisions has expanded boundlessly as a result of an intertwined set of factors. First, the effects of technological modernisation coupled with the trend towards outsourcing have meant that economies in varying locations and degrees of development are more integrated than ever before. The West’s increased economic interest in outsource countries — China and Taiwan come to mind — have resulted in increased media attention on the domestic conditions of those producers of our Barbie dolls and Nike shoes. This heightened attention has brought us images of child sweatshop-workers, abysmal working conditions, and wages that do not exceed mere pennies a day — not to mention the environmental devastation caused by industrial waste and its improper disposal.
Consumer goods are not alone in heaping culpability on us — taking cheap flights for a weekend getaway, turning on the heating (or AC, for that matter), drinking coffee out of disposable cups, and other admittedly unnecessary purchases are constantly in the media for their negative impacts.
Exploitation in labour, the environment, and other sectors are not new phenomena, but the Internet makes it seem more real than ever before. The growth in popularity of individual activism, including veganism and second-hand shopping, has moved to address our new awareness of global consequences — but to what end? The complexity of supply chains means that even with something akin to a 'Fair Trade' label, the average consumer is inadvertently committing, or at the very least abetting structural violence and exploitation. The solution seems simple enough: heavily research different brands, avoid the worst offenders of labour abuses including those in the tea, coffee, chocolate and tobacco industries, shop locally to avoid emissions from transport — the list goes on.
But it’s not as simple as it seems. While some may have the time and means to undertake such painstaking research and effort, that is a luxury that the vast majority cannot afford. This isn’t limited to those living in destitute conditions in the ‘First World’ — of whom there are many; most rely on the cheap products produced by exploitation in other parts of the world.
The issue of consumerism and those who suffer the consequences is ultimately a reflection of the global system as a whole. A rigged system of international trade has produced patterns of exploitation that disproportionately benefits some — for the most part, the 'First World’ — while most of the producers of agricultural and manufactured goods struggle to turn meagre profits — if they do at all.
Attempts to change our behaviour, or at least to change the consequences of our actions, can lead to a wormhole of guilt and indecision. Philosophically, Kant’s Categorical Imperative comes to mind, as does the theory of utilitarianism. The former holds that an action should only be taken if it can be fashioned into a universal principle; the latter, that each action should maximise good for the most people possible. Both are contested concepts, and it seems almost impossible to follow their maxims in practice: it would seem beyond us to formulate a Kantian law that we would consider moral no matter the circumstances, and utilitarianism — specifically who is to benefit from a utilitarian action — is difficult to square with our intuitive understanding of justice. The philosophers behind these ideas could not have anticipated how universal their theoretical scope would have to be in order to maintain their legitimacy in this brave new world.
Global interconnectivity is the source of our sense of culpability for the seemingly inevitable consequences of our actions; but it is characteristically inseparable from the way we live. There is simply too much information (TMI), and it will paralyse our decision-making unless we simply choose to ignore it. Sadly, ignorance in the age of the internet is all too easily blissful.