As a philosophy student at USC, I think it won’t come as a shock to anyone that I am a fan of Mike Schur’s sitcom, “The Good Place.” In it, Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell) dies and wakes up in the afterlife, thinking she’s made it into the Good Place, presumably heaven, but really the “Good” Place is the Bad Place in disguise, designed as an experimental new form of torture.  

The show tackles many serious moral quandaries, with a whole episode even dedicated to its characters living out trolley problems, wherein a person has to choose the better of two bad outcomes, like killing one individual to save five. One of the most important points the show imparts is that being good isn’t just a matter of what you do, rather what you do given the cards you are dealt. 

Jason Mendoza’s (Manny Jacinto) character is a major symbol of this. An amateur DJ from Florida, he is sent to the “Good” Place because of his impulsivity that caused him to engage in various criminal behaviors. But, his recklessness was also an effect of circumstances he couldn’t control: growing up in poverty and receiving an inadequate education, being raised by a young single father with a criminal record, and having impaired cognitive abilities from a potential brain disorder.

Yes, Jason is only a character, but his struggles to overcome systemic barriers in order to build a good life for himself are far from fictional: They are felt by every person who has grown up in an environment where the odds were stacked against them. 

When we talk about ethical consumerism, or the pursuit of purchasing from organizations that champion eco-friendliness and fair working conditions, it’s easy to fall into the trap of a clear right and wrong. It’s easy to self-righteously judge others for buying cage-free eggs instead of pasture-raised ones, or shopping from fast fashion companies. It’s easy to assume that if someone doesn’t prioritize the morality of their purchases, they’re not a good person.

However, this way of conceptualizing ethical consumption does more harm than good by ignoring all the nuances of different opportunities available to people coming from different backgrounds, as Jason’s story highlights. Debates on ethical consumption often assume equal access to choices, which ignores the relevance of economic inequality in affecting these behaviors. Moral judgment must account for this discrepancy.

We would do well to consider this reality of socioeconomic factors influencing what ethical consumption choices are truly available to people, especially in the state of California and the city of Los Angeles, where economic inequality is rampant. 

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, as of 2023, families with the top 10% of incomes earned 11 times more than families with the bottom 10% of incomes, the majority of which being families of color. Moreover, according to former L.A. Controller Ron Galperin’s L.A. Equity Index, for City Council District 9, where USC’s University Park Campus is located, low income families made up a majority of the district and up to 90% of residents in some neighborhoods. 

Similar disparities were also present in other areas including education, environment, and access to resources such as health insurance and food, constituting “a city divided.” Systemic barriers like this compound together, making it more and more difficult for people to have awareness of and access to the most ethical purchases. 

It’s also important to recognize that socioeconomic differences like this are present even in the microcosm of our campus. Some students show up to class donning Chanel bags or Dior lip glosses, and don’t even bat an eye at spending $20 on a smoothie from Erewhon, upholding the “University of Spoiled Children” stereotype. Alternatively, many other students are surviving off their financial aid, scholarships and working multiple jobs to make ends meet. 

Given the rising grocery prices in recent years, people living paycheck to paycheck can’t afford to opt for the more expensive, ethically-sourced products. Of course, it would be ideal if everyone shopped from sustainable, labor-friendly brands, but paying almost $100 for a basic black top from Reformation rather than grabbing a Hanes five-pack is simply not a viable purchase for many. 

This isn’t to say that there aren’t affordable options if you’re looking to consume ethically on a budget. Bringing reusable bags with you to the grocery store, buying clothes from local thrift stores or websites like Thredup or Vinted and searching for cosmetic products certified by the Environmental Working Group are all simple but effective ways to shop more sustainably without additional costs. 

Still, even with these options, we should recognize that consuming ethically is often a matter of ability, rather than intention. So while we should prioritize ethical buying choices and encourage others to do the same, we should do so with the understanding that ethical consumption will look different for everyone and that’s okay. And with that perspective, we can hopefully recognize that people like Jason aren’t necessarily bad people for simply doing the best they could with what they got.