It’s impossible to definitively determine what’s “best”, because the title is so subjective in nature. But when judging products, we tend to say a product is the best when it performs its function the fastest and most thoroughly. We usually consider a computer the best when it surfs the Internet seamlessly and quickly, without considering how it was manufactured or its impact on the environment. But as a society we claim to value these ethical issues, so how can we maintain that this computer still be the best without considering these other aspects?
I would argue that this computer is still in fact the best, because it does what a computer is supposed to do in a superlative fashion. But I don’t think we should value it over other products because of its preeminent performance; we must first reflect on how it was made, how it has been priced, and other ethical considerations. A product that is technically the best should not necessarily be what is most valued.
In my opinion, to “value” something denotes a greater, worldlier understanding of the work. A computer may be the best computer on the market because it is the fastest, but it is not important to our society. If slave laborers made this product that American consumers are enjoying, the product probably does not give back to society as much as it takes, and therefore should not be valued.
We should value what has cultural import, what contributes to society, what promotes good ethics and what conserves the environment. We should also realize that products and works that are the “best” may not be most deserving of such value.
Jessie, when I came up with the "Best Product" assignment, remember, I didn't ask the class to determine what was "technically the best" but rather that which was best. I'm not sure why you don't see labeling something as "best" as a judgement of value. You seem to suggest that it isn't because people see "best" only in terms of performance, but so what if they do? Just because a lot of people say that's what is "best" doesn't mean they're right, right?? Perhaps people just need to broaden their understanding of the term's moral/ethical implications.
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't the label best (which simply means excellent) denote a product that "gives back to society as much as it takes"?
Your statement that products deemed the "best" are not worthy of being valued does in a way make sense. I understand where you are coming from when you say that although a product, like a computer, shouldn't be valued because it is a result of slave labor, that doesn't necessarily make it not the "best" in its category of computers.
ReplyDeleteI think your observations are accurate as to what people in our society tend to do. People don't tend to truly value what is humane and righteous, they do however support ideas such as fair trade and small companies, but when it comes to what they are ACTUALLY doing, the majority of people will look to the artifical best, if I can call it that.
I guess this brings up the sore topic that people need to change their definition of best, and need to stop acting as though they value what is ethical, and truly value what is.
I feel that both the terms “best” and “value” have a wide range to them. What’s best for one person or group of people may be different than what’s best for another.
ReplyDeleteEvery consumer has different values. Most people who purchase Apple products are mostly focusing on the final product – the iPod, iPhone, etc and couldn’t care less on how it was made. An iPod is an iPod. However, a family big on going green may be investing in solar panels for their house and are most likely very concerned with how the product works, how much silicon was used to make it, and how it would benefit over the long run.
So how we value the “best” can’t be given just one definition. There are an infinite number of possible situations in which one must choose what they value as the “best”, but the criteria for each individual will most likely always be different.