In his column about Fair Trade coffee ("Moral uncertainty at Jo's," Feb. 13), Matt Prewitt '08 notes that the purchase of Fair Trade coffee is sometimes simply an expression of a preference "to think of (oneself) as ethical." He correctly argues that this preference for ethical appearances is no guarantor of the actual ethicality of purchasing Fair Trade coffee.
Prewitt has demonstrated an important point about the quest (or "preference") to behave ethically: If fulfilling the preference to appear ethical doesn't guarantee ethical behavior, then fulfilling preferences, in general, doesn't guarantee ethical behavior either.
If there really are ethical imperatives related to purchasing decisions, then there may be times when the laws and norms governing the market get it wrong about which preferences are ethical to fulfill. I assume for instance that the purchase of Mississippi cotton in 1820, though legal, was on the wrong side of the line. I do not use this example to imply that an ethical decision on Fair Trade coffee is equally obvious as one related to slave-produced cotton - it's not. I merely want to point out that market laws might not set boundaries that correspond with ethics, and there probably is a line to be drawn somewhere.
Though Prewitt does not like the thought, we might be "expressing our social consciences through consumption" more often than we realize.
David Wishnick '07
Feb. 13
