You are confusing a legal transfer of currency with the economic reality of market incentives.
Yes, technically the money belongs to the grocer once you hand it over. But the grocer is not a charity. They are a capitalist business that operates on data. You didn’t just hand them money; you handed them money in exchange for a specific product.
By making that exchange, you sent a clear financial signal that procuring a dead animal was a profitable choice for them, so if they procure another one, their profit will likely increase.
no, it doesn’t. it funds the grocer, who can decide what to do with it since it’s now their money. it’s not mine.
You are confusing a legal transfer of currency with the economic reality of market incentives.
Yes, technically the money belongs to the grocer once you hand it over. But the grocer is not a charity. They are a capitalist business that operates on data. You didn’t just hand them money; you handed them money in exchange for a specific product.
By making that exchange, you sent a clear financial signal that procuring a dead animal was a profitable choice for them, so if they procure another one, their profit will likely increase.
they are responsible for their own decisions, regardless of what I do.
The slaughterhouse is responsible for their actions, but that does not absolve you in any moral or legal framework.
but nothing. i’m not responsible for their decisions.
i think you are confusing economic theory with ethical theory.
You cannot separate the two because economics is the mechanism through which your ethical choices manifest in the real world.
wrong.