I refuse to invest in stocks because that would mean (potentially) profiting from the exploitation of the workers in that company. I suppose if I were awarded stocks in the company I work for that might be different, I'd need to think about it more.
I refuse to invest in stocks because that would mean (potentially) profiting from the exploitation of the workers in that company. I suppose if I were awarded stocks in the company I work for that might be different, I'd need to think about it more.
Regarding stocks, you can often be assured that public companies are held to a high standard, especially in western countries where the press reports on exploitation.
I'm not sure this act in itself is morally neutral, imo. There's reasons ethical concerns about objectification (in the older 'treating something/one as an object' formulation of it) pop up not-infrequently through time.
Reducing something to a market view of itself is a choice. Similarly, seeing something as being more complicated but turning away because 'it doesn't have to be'.
Now, I'm not trying to suggest you should take up my concerns here. I'm not saying "you're terrible for this!" in any way. It's just an interesting springboard of a question, what do we see as 'morally neutral' and what has moral salience?
But that's not my only view. E.g. Ethereum and what it can be used for is still interesting to me, but not immediately of any use to me either.