Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.
I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?
The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?
I’m not sure tbh. That’s kind of why I asked the question, and hopefully other’s views may shed light on this ‘issue’
Morals don’t put dinner on the table.
That’s not to say they’re not important, but that business is important too.
So where do you stand on the debate then? Do you believe there’s a ‘trade off’, so to speak?
Genuinely, I don’t really think this is an ethical or moral issue.
With that said, the first thing that jumps out to me is the question intimates that there may be a duty to manufacture “less breakable” products. I’m assuming that’s to protect the money spent by the consumer. If it is, then that’s pretty weird.