What do you believe is the better alternative, though? How will the better alternative come about?

Currently a child has a job making rugs. The conditions of their lives are such that this is the best option for them. This is deplorable, but it's the scenario we're hypothesizing.

If everyone boycotts their rugs, then they'll lose that job, and they'll have to pursue the next best option, which by definition is strictly worse than their current and best option.

People in this area might be starving and digging through trash to look for food and valuables [1], if not for this work. This unskilled labor provides some degree of actual income, which is better than foraging garbage to survive. This income might support the rest of their family, such as grandparents or younger children who can't work. Their younger siblings might be depending on them. Perhaps the younger sibling can afford to go to school because the older sibling works. If you're in poverty to that degree, isn't any income better than none?

I am interested to understand your theory for how your refusal to buy carpets (that you would otherwise buy) will help the children be better off in the end. Consider in the sequence of events that will occur if you (and many people) do buy a carpet they made: they have at least some income to support themselves and their family. They might not go to school, but at least they're not starving in the street. Perhaps they can make life better for their siblings.

Consider the sequence of events that occur if you (and many people) boycott their carpets and the factory goes out of business. The factory is the only business in town catering to foreign buyers and bringing income into the area. What's next for them?

Consider the adult rugmakers in Iran who were the subject of US trade sanctions (the article talked about this) - deprived of their primary source of income, they became worse off.

I would understand better a position like, "I am not going to buy their rugs. Instead I'm going to go to India and help build schools and teach in them, and provide food for their families." This would be doing something to help lift them out of poverty that's better than buying their rugs. However, if the choice is between doing nothing at all and buying their rugs, which do you think is better for them? One does nothing at all for them, and one gives them at least a little income. Compare these two alternatives and consider which is better for the people involved.

These notions are why I think the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics [2] is important to reason about and consider. When we think about these situations, there is a human emotional feeling that, by interacting with a situation we somehow become responsible for it, as if we are sanctioning it:

> The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular.

The article goes on to outline reasons why this thinking is fallacious and I think it makes a pretty good point.

Of course, you are allowed your preferences for what kind of products you buy, and you obviously are not accountable to me. However, the way you're writing about this gives me the impression that you believe that your choice is ethically the right one, or in some way makes the world a better place compared to the alternative choice. If you believe your choice is the ethically right one, then hopefully you are willing to explain why that is so - to explain how the choice leads to better outcomes for the people in question.

The part that I am trying to understand better is how denying someone trade or income makes them better off - someone who is working a job making products because it's the best available option for them (bad though it may be). Per the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics, it seems to me that buying rugs from someone in poverty makes them "slightly better" off since they have income. Boycotting their rugs deprives them of income that they badly need, and potentially puts them on the street.

Anyone in the position to do so is free to donate to charity, or fly to Indian and help people directly. These actions might do more for the people involved than buying rugs. However, let us recognize that most consumers will not take these actions. Let us consider the choice of whether to either boycott Persian rugs made in India, or be willing to buy them. Those are the alternatives. Which is better for the people we're concerned with?

I think Kant has a point regarding the categorical imperative. If you (or anyone) acts a certain way, then you (or anyone) should feel comfortable with everyone else acting that same way too. Thus if you refuse to buy a product on principle, you should be OK with everyone else boycotting that product for the same reason too. Perhaps you are not arguing that everyone else should boycott it, but I think it's fair to ask that you consider the consequences if everyone else acted the same way.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/in-worlds-poorest-slums-...

[2] https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...