The Logical Correctness of Fair Trade

When money is the driver of a corporation's behaviour - creating goods in the most economical way possible makes sense.

Not all goods are created equal however and while the cheapest manufacture process for a corporation may be valuable - there are workers rights to consider as well. It's no coincidence that the cheapest places to manufacture are those which have the loosest labour laws. Looking after workers costs money.

And therein lies the problem of modern day neoliberal policies. Simply put, neoliberalism supports the use of foreign countries to manufacture goods whose low prices exist, in part, because of substandard conditions.

And conversely, this is the problem that Fair Trade companies solve. They respect all levels of the individual and don't treat them as just expendable pieces of biological meat. Fair trade rules dictate policies such as reasonable working hours, a livable wage, health insurance, along with sick and personal leave. All designed to improve biological quality, provide equal social dignity, and give time away from work for the individual to grow.

That's what makes fair trade goods better than their non fair trade counterparts. They're supported by many of the codes of the MOQ. From 'the law of the jungle' in that they improve the health of their workers, 'The Law' in that they respect the workers right to not be abused, and finally the Code Of Art by providing downtime and space for growth.

That's why being on the right side of these codes is what makes, when possible, buying fair or locally made goods moral and supported by the MOQ.

Why you shouldn't use the MOQ

I continually post and will continue to post about why you should use the MOQ. It's great in so many different ways and will help us sort out many problems we face today. But here's a couple of big reasons why you shouldn't bother with the MOQ..

Reason Number 1 - It's a lot of work to change the way you think currently.

Understanding the MOQ takes a lot of questioning assumptions one has taken for granted for their whole life. Who likes questioning themselves? It can be disorienting and legitimately painful. You could fill libraries with the pain induced existential writings of many a philosopher. Who likes to go through all that? Especially when the results are not guaranteed and it can often be not very fun.

It's far easier to stick with the comfort of what you know already. Conservatism has its advantages, and the lack of pain required to change is the big one. 'Why should I change the way I think currently?' is a fair question.

Reason Number 2 - If you do eventually agree with the MOQ you'll have very few peers.

Being that agreement with the MOQ requires philosophical questioning of ones' whole thought structure - few are willing or able to make the journey. Academics who naturally have grown up questioning things, have been taught to question from within the Subject Object Metaphysics tradition only and so make assumptions which the MOQ doesn't. This actually makes them less likely to change their way of thinking about metaphysics than their non-academic peers. Compared to our current metaphysics then, there's very few people on the planet who subscribe to the MOQ.

Furthermore, even those who do agree with the MOQ have a history of disagreement. So who likes to be in a minority?


Of course even in light of these two reasons I still think it's worth going through the pain of fully understanding the MOQ. Without pain, life doesn't grow and become better. Rather than simply just happiness - the meaning of life is to be the best you can be. And the Metaphysics of Quality with its logically sound code of morality makes you a better person.