I haven't read the whole thread but I've got to add my .02. Yes the ethics of the maker/manufacturer makes a difference for me. I hadn't really been interested in Gerber for a while but when they made that blatant copy of CRKT's M16 a few years back I swore off their knives for good. Benchmade, Kershaw, Spyderco, KaBar/Beckers for me from now on. Probably some Bucks as well.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Do the ethics of a knife maker/company matter to you?
- Thread starter alaskanativeson
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 29,205
A maker's or company's ethics are a major determining factor in whether I will purchase from them.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 196
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
- Messages
- 3,652
Doh!
No worries, Ah Pook, I knew exactly what you meant to say.
It just provided the perfect opportunity to mention a custom maker (and production collaboration maker) with OUTSTANDING ethics!!:thumbup:Regards,
3G
... if you can't apply ethical decisions to all the decisions that you make in life, then you might as well not apply ethics to any decisions you make.
Consumers can be a strong force to enact positive change . . . Why is it immature for collections of people to try and enact the change they want through market forces?
There's good points here. Please don't think I'm espousing the opposite - that if you can't make ethical decisions, don't make any. That doesn't happen in life however. What decisions people make are usually self serving, tho, and when they choose to make intangibles have more priority than budget, it's because they think they have the discretionary room in their cash flow. That doesn't make it an ethical choice - it makes it a feel-good choice. The ethics are still debatable.
Collections of people using their market force to make changes is practically a law of economics. It doesn't mean the change is automatically mature or annointed. Buying houses financed beyond a worst case budget, luxury SUV's with insupportable gas mileage, or cell phones plans that cost more than a deluxe custom knife a year are good cases in point. Collections of people voted Hitler into office, take billions from Government and spend millions on bonuses and 12 day retreats at spas, and impose Assault Weapons Bans on the American public.
Collections of people are sometimes ignorant mobs with no ethics. I avoid them. I've learned that if something is highly popular, then something's wrong about it - like carbon offsets. I don't impose my ethics on someone else just because I don't like their beliefs and politics. I sure can avoid buying their products, but doing so when I see an obvious superiority in price/performance is really hurting myself, not them.
By and large, unethical makers fall by the wayside, but they are few and far between. The biggest group of unethical makers are the ones who make junk and manage to prey on the ignorant. Mick Strider has taken his lumps, but still makes good products, well enough the knife buying public still asks Sebenza or Strider? Ethics don't seem to be a problem for them, the question always revolves about materials, quality, and ergos. I repeat, that's where a maker puts his ethics. I don't read many who crow about their latest ethical epiphany in their ads.
Dark Ops gets trashed for their origins and ad copy - yes, there are ethical issues I have with them, too. But, when it comes to actual value for the product, do you get what you pay for? Owners say yes. That's a statement of ethics, too.
Consumers can be a strong force to enact positive change . . . Why is it immature for collections of people to try and enact the change they want through market forces?
There's good points here. Please don't think I'm espousing the opposite - that if you can't make ethical decisions, don't make any. That doesn't happen in life however. What decisions people make are usually self serving, tho, and when they choose to make intangibles have more priority than budget, it's because they think they have the discretionary room in their cash flow. That doesn't make it an ethical choice - it makes it a feel-good choice. The ethics are still debatable.
Collections of people using their market force to make changes is practically a law of economics. It doesn't mean the change is automatically mature or annointed. Buying houses financed beyond a worst case budget, luxury SUV's with insupportable gas mileage, or cell phones plans that cost more than a deluxe custom knife a year are good cases in point. Collections of people voted Hitler into office, take billions from Government and spend millions on bonuses and 12 day retreats at spas, and impose Assault Weapons Bans on the American public.
Collections of people are sometimes ignorant mobs with no ethics. I avoid them. I've learned that if something is highly popular, then something's wrong about it - like carbon offsets. I don't impose my ethics on someone else just because I don't like their beliefs and politics. I sure can avoid buying their products, but doing so when I see an obvious superiority in price/performance is really hurting myself, not them.
By and large, unethical makers fall by the wayside, but they are few and far between. The biggest group of unethical makers are the ones who make junk and manage to prey on the ignorant. Mick Strider has taken his lumps, but still makes good products, well enough the knife buying public still asks Sebenza or Strider? Ethics don't seem to be a problem for them, the question always revolves about materials, quality, and ergos. I repeat, that's where a maker puts his ethics. I don't read many who crow about their latest ethical epiphany in their ads.
Dark Ops gets trashed for their origins and ad copy - yes, there are ethical issues I have with them, too. But, when it comes to actual value for the product, do you get what you pay for? Owners say yes. That's a statement of ethics, too.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 10,795
Indeed. It is a statement that says to me there are people who put the dollar ahead of everything else, and buying a counterfeit, copy or knockoff of someone else's design is OK.
So to you (or the "others" you speak of), if its priced cheap enough, you have no issues buying a design that has been stolen and reproduced?
stabman
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 21,352
I'm sure he owns a couple GI Tantos
I thought the GI Tanto AND the Strider were sinfully ugly.:barf:
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,698
I agree :thumbup:
I prefer to decide by MYSELF whether a company is "ethical"
If some guy makes a post about XYZ Knife Co. "stealing designs"
or using Chinese labor
Or selling at Wal Mart
Or using French steel
Or having a hole in their blade and not paying Spyderco
Or dude says he was in the Green Berets and in reality he was a army cook
I will take it into consideration after I do my own research/ethics evaluation
Price is my MAIN factor
And I'll be the first to admit it
It is all part of being Homo Economicus
I will only buy from companies and individuals that seem honest and ethical to me in terms of their business practices and personal behavior. This seems to leave plenty of options, with so many great production companies and knifemakers available right now.
I do try to be aware (as much as possible) of how a company's workers are treated and take that into consideration when making purchases. For example, knives that are made in the USA are subject to US labor laws, so I know the workers should have decent conditions. I also like to purchase from Himalayan Imports based upon their treatment of their workers.
I will buy from companies and individuals who have different political views from my own. I don't want to punish someone for having a well-intended opinion that differs from my own. The free expression of a variety of opinion in this country is one of the things that has kept it strong and great. That said, if someone seems to be encouraging hate crimes, I'm not going to buy their products.
I do try to be aware (as much as possible) of how a company's workers are treated and take that into consideration when making purchases. For example, knives that are made in the USA are subject to US labor laws, so I know the workers should have decent conditions. I also like to purchase from Himalayan Imports based upon their treatment of their workers.
I will buy from companies and individuals who have different political views from my own. I don't want to punish someone for having a well-intended opinion that differs from my own. The free expression of a variety of opinion in this country is one of the things that has kept it strong and great. That said, if someone seems to be encouraging hate crimes, I'm not going to buy their products.
- Status