BOYCOTT OR NOT?

A paper on logical and moral reasoning

Ethics plays an important role in the life of a mere human being. It is actually one of the
things that we choose to live by and more unknowingly than not, we are faced with certain
questions each day concerning ethics and thus may require knowledge on logical and moral
reasoning. Ethics by definition deals with the issue of what is good or bad thus generally it is
concerned with morality and values. Consider the situation wherein a certain person named Eric
regularly goes to a certain cafe: the food and drinks were just ordinary however they were quite
cheap. He later finds out that the reason behind the cheapness of the products was actually
because of how the cafes manager handles her workers from Africa who cant get regular jobs.
She pays them really low, lets them sleep at the basement, feeds them just enough and with that,
she can price her goods really low but in the end get more profit. This is where the question on
logical and moral reasoning comes in: Which will be the moral thing to do: boycotting the cafe
or staying as a regular knowing that the workers are victims of exploitation?

Different theories can be used to approach the question and one of which concerns the
Teleological side of Normative Ethics. The theory of Utilitarianism states that the action is right
if it maximizes the pleasure or happiness over pain and suffering; not just for ones own interests
but instead aims to achieve happiness for everyone. If we base our analysis of the situation on the
theory of Utilitarianism it can be pretty tricky for a lot of consequences from certain actions
should be considered. Eric boycotting the cafe would mean that he is addressing his own
happiness of not supporting the exploitation of the workers but would his boycott provide the
most good for them? If we think about it, Eric not anymore buying from the cafe could actually
mean fewer wages for the workers and that wouldnt actually comply with the conditions of
Utilitarianism for an action to be good. On the other hand, if Eric chooses to come back, he
addresses the need and in the same way the happiness of the workers; he may not address his
happiness of not supporting the managers ways but he can still find another source of happiness
such as the enjoyment of the cafes products at really low prices. This on the other hand meets
the conditions for an action to be considered good in accordance to the theory of Utilitarianism.

The theory of Preference Utilitarianism on the other hand shows a different perspective.
According to this theory, a certain action is considered good as long as the person is able to
achieve a certain preference because of that action regardless to whether it brought pain or
suffering. This theory then therefore depends on what Eric actually wants: if he finds satisfaction
in showing that he is against the exploitation of the workers by boycotting the cafe then this
might be the good thing to do in contrast to when he finds more satisfaction in availing for the
unexceptional but cheap services of the cafe where going back seems to be the better choice.
Meanwhile, if we employ the theory of Egoism, things may not be different. Egoism requires
that we act on what would make us happy in other words; we should be concerned with the
advancement of our self interests. So in this case, the good thing to do will actually depend on
what Eric wants.

Altruism on the other hand, tells us to be selfless. We shall act for others and our actions
shall be considered good once it is done for other people. As said in the discussions, one who
strictly follows altruism doesnt think of ones own interests doesnt think about his or herself
but only of others. So in this case, Eric shall not think of himself, of whether or not what makes
him uncomfortable but instead which act would give the workers less discomfort. Furthermore,
Altruism would actually say that the moral thing to do would be to come back to the cafe since
we are no longer interested with what Eric has to feel but with that of the workers. Surely,
coming back would mean no fewer wages and most probably that would make them feel happy.

In certain aspects of the deontological side of normative ethics however, the

circumstances may turn out to be different. One of Kants Categorical Imperatives states Act
only on that principle which you can at the same time will that it shall become a universal law
meaning, the act that will turn out to be universal in the sense that it shall not be inconsistent and
undesirable to many is considered moral. Now, in Erics situation we shall consider the act of
going back to the cafe despite the exploitation of the workers. If we assume that the middle class
does the same, the elite shall think that it will be ok to do such exploitation of the minorities and
therefore in the sense is very undesirable to many making the act an immoral one. The same
thing goes for Kants second Categorical Imperative stating that in order for an act to be
considered moral, it should not in any way imply the use of humans for the benefit of the person
doing the act. It is quite clear that with regards to this moral law, coming back to the cafe would
be immoral for the act implies the use of the workers for Erics own benefit therefore; the moral
thing to do would be to boycott the cafe.
 With all these being said, different approaches lead to different answers. Some dont even
have concrete answers for they require the preference of people. Furthermore, one must learn to
use the most logical and efficient way in dealing with such situations. For me, I would follow
Kants Categorical Imperatives for it requires acts to be universalizable and at the same time to
be friendly to humanity in the sense that one shouldnt use another for ones self interest.
Boycotting may seem bad for most people at first but if you think about it, it follows Kants
moral laws and it would actually depend if you just stop there. No one is stopping Eric from
actually doing something about it other than boycotting the cafe. He could do a lot of more
things which can give the workers what they deserve; he may even tap the law. What Im saying
is that in making certain decisions on ethics, you dont just stop there; you can go on further
doing more moral things to solidify that the decision you made was also the most moral thing
that you could actually do. Morality and ethics along with logical reasoning are powerful things
that drive this world and learning about such things is vital to society most especially now
wherein the world is so much in disorder because of conflicts regarding morality and ethics. I for
one am thankful to have learned firsthand and I think that more people should as well.