Walmart stops selling "racy" men's magazines

[Coyote]

While I typically find Glocksman's posts to be intelligent and astute, I must disagree here, since cigarettes not only cause harm to the smoker-- who makes his own descison to harm himself-- also causes direct and verifiable harm to others.

Racy magazines don't cause any real (verifiable) harm to the reader (although the religious right will espouse 'moral decay') nor do they cause harm to people around the reader (although the uber-feminists will insist that 'porn causes rape'). Both opinion are hyperbolic opinions rahther than verifiable fact, though....

[Glocksman]

I think they're a bunch of pigheaded, anti-sex, Southern-fried morons because of it

Agreed. It's a stupid decision.

I refuse to shop there because I think their business practices are repugnant and inconsistent with the business practices of establishments I prefer to patronize given a choice.

Agreed again.

I have several choices in my area: Wal-Mart, K-Mart, ShopKo and Target. Of the four, K-Mart has a negative reputation to begin with (hence the rather unflattering nickname of "K-ma-part"), and Wal-Mart's business practices are unethical as hell, leaving them right out of the running. That leaves ShopKo and Target. Target is closer to my apartment than ShopKo. Decision made

ShopKo closed their local stores a few years ago. The Super K-Mart (KMart has union DC's, BTW) is in the process of closing. Target opened a 'Greatland Target' right across from the Super Wal-Mart. So basically I have 2 discount stores in the area to go to. When I do need that kind of merchandise, I used to go to the local Super K because it was open 24 hours and I'm a night owl.

As a rule, I avoid Walmart because of their antiunion policies and actions.
I avoid Target because I don't want my money to help finance Mark Dayton's political career and because of their antiunion policies. I guess Dayton's liberalism doesn't extend too far from his pocketbook.

If I *have* to buy something from one of those stores, the decision is based on price although I will pay a little more for US made merchandise, but good luck finding American made anything (other than rubbermaid housewares type stuff) in either store.

[Darth Wong]

In your and my ethical universes, there is nothing immoral about pics of naked women. In the ethical universe of many of Wally World's customers (at least the ones who called and bitched), there apparently is something immoral about it.

Moral relativism is a dead-end street. The point is that despite their bullshit, they cannot establish OBJECTIVE HARM from these magazines. I can easily establish objective harm from cigarettes.

Same thing applies to selling tobacco. To me there is nothing immoral about the act of selling tobacco, yet there are those who want to outlaw it.

Tobacco causes objective harm. This is scientifically verifiable.

Certain sales tactics and advertising by the tobacco companies may be immoral, but the sale of tobacco products to adults is not an immoral act per se

Any act which objectively harms individuals or society (or both, in this case) is immoral. Whether it should be outlawed is another question, but it is certainly immoral.

For the record, I used to smoke but quit 3 years ago.

Good to hear. It's a nasty habit and you'll live longer.

Let me amplify that the morality of selling a product that does objective harm to the user is based upon the user being aware of the conseqences of the use of the product and making the choice to use it regardless of risk.

Why? If we posit that the morality of an action is tied to the damage it causes, then why do you get off the ethical hook for facilitating it? Pointing a finger does not change the fact that by making it possible, an unethical act has been committed.

Given that only a total idiot or a tobacco company shill would profess to be unaware of the link between various diseases and tobacco, IMHO the only morality issue re the sale of tobacco would be the sale of cigarettes to minors.

It's actually more complicated than that; tobacco products are deliberately engineered in order to be more addictive (even at the cost of being more toxic) than they would naturally be. And for decades, they DID deny the addictive and toxic nature of cigarettes.

But in any case, the simple reality is that tobacco products cause objective harm, while racy magazines do not. Therefore, it is clearly more ethical to sell racy magazines than tobacco.

[Glocksman]

Why? If we posit that the morality of an action is tied to the damage it causes, then why do you get off the ethical hook for facilitating it? Pointing a finger does not change the fact that by making it possible, an unethical act has been committed.

I guess it's the social libertarian in me. If someone chooses of their own free will to smoke, that's their decision and it's none of my business.

That makes the act of selling tobacco ethical to me as long as deception isn't used in the marketing. However, as you pointed out, the tobacco companies have used deception and denied the cancer/smoking link for a very long time. Philip Morris (now Altria Group) and the other tobacco companies aren't off the ethical hook by a long shot.

But by the time Target pulled the smokes off the shelves (1994 or 1996 I believe), the link was very well known and only an idiot or someone living in a cave would be unaware of it.



However, I confess that I forgot the secondhand smoke issue when considering the morality of smoking. Willfully exposing someone else involuntarily to large amounts of carcinogens is not a moral act.

But I do posit that if the smoker doesn't expose others to the smoke, the act of smoking itself is neither moral or immoral.

It's actually more complicated than that; tobacco products are deliberately engineered in order to be more addictive (even at the cost of being more toxic) than they would naturally be.

As an aside, I smoked for over 12 years before I quit. My motivation was that my Mother made me promise to while she lay dying of pancreatic cancer (not related to smoking, BTW). For the first 2 weeks, it was hard. Now the only time I ever find myself wishing for a cigarette is when I take long (100 mile+) trips by car.

The addictiveness of cigarettes can be overcome despite the additives.

But in any case, the simple reality is that tobacco products cause objective harm, while racy magazines do not. Therefore, it is clearly more ethical to sell racy magazines than tobacco.

I'll agree that it's more ethical to sell racy magazines than it is to sell tobacco. It's just not unethical to sell tobacco.

[Aeolus]

Oh come on! Like Wal-mart has had anything of REAL value in the first place! Seriously, when was the last time anyone here found something decent in that lame ass store? Fuck them! Their only redeeming value is that they'll take ANYTHING back, doesn't matter if you bought it from them or not. Doesn't matter if you have a reciept or not, they'll still take it.

Thier only real value is price. I admit if I need bulk goods, socks, t-shirts, underwear I'll go to Wal-mart.

[Iceberg]

To sum up the last page or so:

Various other people: Target is a much better place to shop than Wal-Mart, because of Wal-Mart's unethical practices with respect to intellectual property, business competition and consumer choice.
Glocksman: Target sucks because they stopped carrying smokes and guns to appease the soccer moms.
Me: Um, Target hasn't carried guns, ever.
Glocksman: Well, they suck because they don't carry smokes.
Me: So what? If you have X stores in an area, and X-1 carry cigarettes, that's not really a limited array of choice. You just have to go somewhere other than Target to buy your cigarettes.
Glocksman: Well, they still suck because Mark Dayton's a liberal* and they don't carry cigarettes.
Darth Wong: Cigarettes cause objective harm. Girly magazines don't.
Glocksman: No they don't.
Darth Wong: Yes they do.
Glocksman: Well maybe they do, but they're still not immoral.
Darth Wong: Yes they are, and here's why. *gives reasons*
Glocksman: Well... uh... it's not unethical to sell them because only an idiot wouldn't know the dangers.

Me: *facepalm*

Am I getting it right here?

*: Glocksman obviously introduced this point as a red herring, since Senator Dayton's political views are clearly irrelevant to a discussion on whether or not it's ethical to sell cigarettes, girly magazines and guns (respectively, "no," "yes," and "yes"). And I think that this point really comes down to an irrational dislike of liberals regardless of whether their political orientation has anything to do with the subject at hand.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm surprised no one has leapt up to defend the practice by saying "artists must realize that actions have consequences", the way they do for the Dixie Chicks boycott.

My parents said the same thing to me when I said it was wrong to boycott someone for their political views.

They said I was being stupid and idealistic. As if one cannot be allowed to find anything stupid or wrong in the world.

[Glocksman]

Darth Wong: Cigarettes cause objective harm. Girly magazines don't.
Glocksman: No they don't.
Darth Wong: Yes they do.
Glocksman: Well maybe they do, but they're still not immoral

False. I never said that cigarettes do not cause objective harm.

Glocksman: Target sucks because they stopped carrying smokes and guns to appease the soccer moms.
Me: Um, Target hasn't carried guns, ever.

I conceded earlier that I wasn't certain on the gun and ammo issue at Target and that I might be remembering Woolco.

*: Glocksman obviously introduced this point as a red herring, since Senator Dayton's political views are clearly irrelevant to a discussion on whether or not it's ethical to sell cigarettes, girly magazines and guns (respectively, "no," "yes," and "yes"). And I think that this point really comes down to an irrational dislike of liberals regardless of whether their political orientation has anything to do with the subject at hand.

I mentioned the Dayton issue as one of the reasons why *I* won't shop at Target. His politics are not relevant to the discussion of the morality of selling cigarettes vs. that of selling Maxim or Stuff unless they are one of the factors that motivated Target to quit selling cigarettes to begin with.

Let's put it this way, cigarettes are a very profitable item to sell.
They're also easy to secure at the cash register, you have guaranteed repeat customers, high turnover of product, and there's no outlay for advertising expenses.

Why would target give up selling such an item? Granted, smokes probably accounted for perhaps 1-2% of total sales, but when you consider the wide range of articles a Target has for sale, 2 out of every 100 items sold would have been a pack of smokes and that's a lot of cigarettes and a lot of profit.

Me: So what? If you have X stores in an area, and X-1 carry cigarettes, that's not really a limited array of choice. You just have to go somewhere other than Target to buy your cigarettes.

I can make that same argument regarding Maxim.

Various other people: Target is a much better place to shop than Wal-Mart, because of Wal-Mart's unethical practices with respect to intellectual property, business competition and consumer choice.

What does any of that (other than consumer choice) have to do with the issue of the morality of selling racy magazines versus the morality of selling tobacco products?

I'm not defending Wal-Mart's other practices.

My stance is that selling smokes is not immoral in and of itself. My reasoning for this is that I tend to be a social libertarian and it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to condemn the sale of tobacco while simultaneously advocating the legalization of illegal drugs, prostitution, and gambling.

It's a matter of consistency of belief, and that's why I equate the pulling of tobacco products with the pulling (heh ) of Maxim and Stuff from the shelves.