The 2022 FIFA World Cup is almost upon us. The bid for this year's tournament was awarded to Qatar, a country with a poor human rights record, a record further blemished by reports of deaths and injury to many migrant workers who have been exploited during stadium construction.
Despite this fact, many millions (billions?) of people are expected to watch televised broadcasts of the event. Many of these viewers, if asked, would likely object to the treatment of those who made the event possible and would also likely claim to not condone such treatment and to wish to not further the chances of any such treatment occurring in the future.
Tournaments such as the World Cup attempt to recoup/profit from their efforts largely via the sale of advertising, much of which is purchased by companies who obtain spots during the high-rating match broadcasts.
Watching/listening to these broadcasts contributes to television ratings, which are essentially view counts expected by those companies which advertise during broadcasts; companies which have paid very large sums to the same Qatari organisations which have contributed towards the deaths and maltreatment of thousands of workers.
So, in effect, by watching the tournament, it might be reasonably argued that (if a viewer has considered these matters), a viewer is condoning or ignoring and/or supporting this maltreatment.
When I asked my father if he would watch the tournament despite knowing of its traumatic foundations, he said he would, and he justified his decision by stating that the impact of him not watching would be negligible.
I found it difficult to argue with this fact, but if millions of individuals in the same position declined to watch the World Cup, ratings would decrease significantly and there would be more pressure upon FIFA to in the future award the tournament to countries likely to treat workers with more dignity, and perhaps even pressure the Qatari government to compensate those who have been harmed by their conduct.
This reminded me of an ethical principle I stumbled across a while ago, but can no longer properly articulate or find a source for.
I'm seeking the name and/or work of any philosopher(s) which advocated the principle which states something like:
When an individual decides how to act, they should do so on the basis that their actions accord with the consequences of everyone acting in the same manner.