Consent and consumption
I think most would agree that if we were able to see how and what goes into the products we consume, there would be a broad consensus of boycotting. But where does this thought break down?
I'm thinking of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. When people read about the gross conditions of how their food was produced, they were understandably outraged. Similar story with leaded gasoline, when the truth became incontrovertible, people stopped using it (except for small airplanes which still use leaded gasoline).
Should we place a higher social significance on the auditors and investigative journalists of the world?
I'm also reminded of Teddy Roosevelt calling the press mukrakers, insinuating they were sowing social unrest unduly. I think TR was wrong, and it was precisely the nosy investigators who were able to shine the spotlight on the paltry conditions of urban dwellers and were the driving force behind much needed social change.
(Edit: I think I should reiterate the first sentence.
I think most would agree that if we were able to sufficiently understand how products are made and what goes into the products we consume, there would be a broad consensus of boycotting.
[Here I mean a broad contextual understanding of everything from dietary understanding to toxic materials used in products, and even the negative effects of social media])