Question

[Xanth]

Would you be more likely to do business with a company if they could prove that they weren't doing what they do JUST for money... but doing what they do to make life better on this planet?

Like, if Walmart, all of a sudden, started paying decent wages and stopped worrying about their bottom line... ?

Just curious what everyone's thoughts on something like that would be?

[PlasmaAstralProjection]

If I had more money I probably would buy from Walmart if they paid their workers more, and avoid them if they didn't. Unfortunately I think most of society doesn't think along these lines.

[Szaxx]

I'm sure everyone would like to, the main problem in this is all the eco friendly products have a higher cost. It's with the general lack of available cash that the majority are forced into the mass produced cheaper brands.
This price is what commercialism dictates.
A 'save the world' company would be the worlds largest chain by far if the price is right.
Ethics play so small a part in either feeding or starving your family.

With a price match it would be a different story.

[LightBeam]

Szaxx is right. Everyone can see the right from the wrong, but the income dictates who are you going to do business with. There was a time when I bought produce from 99c store. Fortunately, this is long forgotten and now I buy only from organic and health stores. I am a big fan of Whole Foods store. They make sure no products in their store have nitrites and other harmful chemicals. They don't even have light olive oil, because it requires refining and all refined cooking oils had harsh chemicals at some point to extract maximum amount of oil from various sources. Then they have a process of removing the chemicals but no one tells you to what degree the oil is purified. So Whole Foods cares what type of food they are going to sell and I highly respect that. They are pricier, but not that high. If the gov did not support the big corporations who make hot dogs to last for years and packed with nitrites and other chemicals, the organic food will not be that expensive. At the end, big food companies and fast food chains with unhealthy food win, and they assist the pharma companies also to thrive, because people get all kinds of diseases as a result of unhealthy food. Unfortunately in our society power and money rule and no one from the governing parties care about the people's well being.

[Stillwater]

As mentioned by others, for 4/5 humans on this planet, the only decision to be made is completely economic. They simply do not have the resources to care about what happens on the supply chain, since if they don't opt for the cheapest options at all times, they will bring suffering on their families.

In this situation, the consumer is not a moral agent (meaning they don't have a realistic choice between two alternatives- they could choose to starve, but I don't consider that a realistic alternative to choose for other humans).

The moral agent in this situation is the supplier. They can opt for what is ethical, or they can opt for what is cheapest. It is worth noting then that the only moral agents with any choice in a situation of scarcity are the suppliers.

Kant came up with an ethical theory based on universal applications, and it is pretty simple: For every "x", would I desire that every human does "x"?  For instance, if I want to know if theft is ethical, I have to ask myself if it is preferrable for all humans to steal, or if it is preferrable for no humans to steal.

The universal is what is relavent here. Since I cannot ask the majority of humans to starve, I must solve the ethical questions of supply some other way, and to me that means they must be solved by the supplier, rather than consumer. So the real question, is how do I compel the supplier to behave ethically, knowing that it is cheaper for them to cut corners, and I just determined it is most ethical to expect the majority of humans to opt for the cheapest products?

Either I must convert the have-nots into ethical agents by ensuring they have enough resources to be able to address questions other than need, or there must be a system in place which encourages the supplier to act ethically regardless of cost to them. The second is a much taller order, so I think it is a pretty good argument to press for universal standards of living instead/

[IsayWhaat]

Would you be more likely to do business with a company if they could prove that they weren't doing what they do JUST for money... but doing what they do to make life better on this planet?

Like, if Walmart, all of a sudden, started paying decent wages and stopped worrying about their bottom line... ?

Just curious what everyone's thoughts on something like that would be?

Everyone is trying to make a better life on this planet, bottom line is, they are trying to make a better life for themselves.

If a business can afford such noble goal, its owner is either naive fool (and doing business with such is your own downfall) or he is extremely financially secured and doesn't care for profit.

From a business perspective one doesn't care for anything, but profit, so doing business with such companies/enterprises/organizations is highly risky and managers definitely want to avoid them.
From perspective of a human being, it is only natural to wish for that.

[Trepkos]

What is "better"? If you're talking about technology that makes our life easier (like cell phones, kitchen tools, cars, internet service, etc...) then i would not consider investing (if i had the money). Because; technology and the companies linked with it produce a downward-flowing energy that literally sucks. Companies are embedded in a power structure and their influence inhibits creativity. This, coupled with a certain secrecy and absence around/of empowerment techniques, results in money-spending without giving it a thought. People buy products at the expense of their personal energy, not just their money. In this way, mental energy is largely absent in ordinary human beings. With ordinary human beings i mean those of the worker class (or the majority). Most of them claim they're happy if they buy products, but in reality they suffer. There's a surreal touch in all of this.

Helping with the "great plan" (doing business) may have certain benefits, but in the end it's a struggle for more power. And if one reaches a high power status and if one uses this status to do "good" (helping fellow human beings empowering themselves), then this individual or "initiate" will be killed.

[Xanth]

ROFL

I really should have known better than to ask this question here. 

It was really just a straightforward question guys... no double speak here.
For myself, YES, I was definitely purchase my "things" and "services" from a company who could prove to me that they were in it for more than just $$. 

Hence my question.  I had a business idea and I wanted to simply see how much desire there was out there... especially in a more spiritually-oriented community. 

[Stillwater]

For any supplier to put ethics above profit, it is a positive thing.

Maybe what I was saying with my response is that I think that while it is worthwhile to focus on the choices of consumers, it is likely not the best immediate solution for the larger problem.

For instance, apply it to the situation of the drought in california; extreme restrictions are being placed on residential water usage. Is this helpful? To an extent, yes. But then... residential use accounts for less than 15% of total use. People there feel as though a huge amount of attention is being paid to the problem as a result of residential restrictions, but the lion's share is used by the commercial farms. The real way to conserve water is not to focus on the homeowners, but rather to meticulously study what is happening all along the farming processes, and what systems and crops account for significantly higher usages.

Now why do I bring up something as left-field as Kant's Universal ethical principle? Because a similar issue exists in product consumption. Because most consumers in the world do not have choice over which products to buy for economic reasons, the majority of the chance to make a difference in consumption resides with suppliers currently. Thus your product can only be beneficial if the majority of consumers in the market you are serving have the realistic choice to opt for it, even over cheaper alternatives.

[Bluefirephoenix]

I've had 2 friends start buisnesses that were spiritually oriented. The one in Maine, he started out at a flea market selling stones, incense stuff like that and built up his buisness from there. He owns the building that houses the store. No debts in a good spot with lots of tourists and it's completely spiritually oriented. He will be able to retire in a few years. 

Second buisness had a rocky start and has torn my friend's relationship apart. He started out renting a storefront then trying to make a go of it. The buisness is successful now but there is debt and it's costly in time.

The time factor is not something that most people consider. You  work your 8 hours and that's it. But in your own buisness you have to work all you can to keep things going.   I think out of your home or in a flea market if it's a store would be a good easy start. Build slow. You are in Toronto so you have networking that you can do as well. ... I wouldn't dare start a storefront in Cape Breton with a rental.