21–30 of 69 posts
What this article really misses is that if you exploit someone at slight better conditions than they were previously being exploited, you are still exploiting them, and morally responsible for that.
AFAIKT it only means that other people are having an interaction that the speaker finds repulsive.
This makes "exploitation" in the eye of the beholder, and not something that can be objectively measured or discussed.
The argument that we can profit from the poor by giving them a small amount of money that is better than the nothing they usually get, and still be criticized because it is not enough reminds me of the ultimatum game. Here we have two players, the first player has a plan to win a a million dollars, but for the plan to work, the second player needs to cooperate, if he doesn't everything is lost. The plan is perfectly…
>>>So it show that we are not completely rational and selfish here. Does it? Accepting $1 might be a good strategy if this game only ever comes up once and no one can learn from it, but that's not the world we live in. If all the "second players" in the world don't accept anything below 30%, guess what, we end up much better off in the long run.
Reminds me of how Facebook wanted to offer free internet access to a limited number of services to people in India and Africa. My understanding is it got canned because people were mad about it not being full internet access. Full gift horse in mouth. The people who would rather others have no internet access than limited internet irk me so badly.
Something the article misses is that when you become aware of an issue, you do become responsible. Now, we can't act on every problem so inaction has to be on the table. But: > Mr. Thornley improved on the status quo – but in the process he interacted the problem and was thus caught up in it. No. The proper response to the wage gap[1] is not to pay women slightly more but still less than the equivalently-qualified ma…
It's also interesting that it wouldn't even solve the "wage gap" that is often talked about. At least in the comments, someone goes down this rabbit hole, points out that the generally talked about wage gap (IE the "women earn 83 cents for every dollar men earn" ones) is, at least as being published by BLS/etc an overall one, not an individual one. IE they are calculating median annual earnings of all women working f…
This article seems like a major failure of both imagination and empathy. Paying homeless people $20 a day to be wifi hotspots or paying people's bills on the condition that they become vegan helps in the moment , but these solutions are actively harmful in the long term if practiced as a default response to the problems they ostensibly address. Such "solutions" calcify in people's minds, and provide a convenient excu…
Perfect is the enemy of good. Sure, giving a homeless person $20 doesn’t solve homelessness but it does a lot more good than dreaming about utopian systemic shifts that are never going to happen.
What this article really misses is that if you exploit someone at slight better conditions than they were previously being exploited, you are still exploiting them, and morally responsible for that.
The word "exploit" is thrown around a lot. AFAIKT it only means that other people are having an interaction that the speaker finds repulsive. This makes "exploitation" in the eye of the beholder, and not something that can be objectively measured or discussed.
Of course, the crux of whether something is mutually beneficial or exploitatative is how you define "much more" vs "approximately the same".
In (chattel) slavery, it is quite clear that the slave gets almost nothing, while the master receives huge benefits, so almost everyone agrees that it is a form of exploitation.
Some people also consider most employment contracts as exploitative (wage slavery), as the owners of a company extract more money than the workers get in compensation (profit is essentially exactly the difference between what the workers and capital owners were payed and what the vue of their work was - and it is entirely the property of the owners, not the workers). Whether you believe the difference between the value you bring to the company and the wages you are paid is large or small will more or less determine whether you think the company is exploiting you or you are in a mutually beneficial relationship with it - and neither option is objectively right or wrong.
Still, the difference isn't as arbitrary as you make it out to be.
This article seems like a major failure of both imagination and empathy. Paying homeless people $20 a day to be wifi hotspots or paying people's bills on the condition that they become vegan helps in the moment , but these solutions are actively harmful in the long term if practiced as a default response to the problems they ostensibly address. Such "solutions" calcify in people's minds, and provide a convenient excu…
"repulsive to the general public because regular people, on some level, understand that everyone has an unconditional right to the safety and dignity" I want to point out a couple errors in your statement. 1. The correct verb to use is "feel", rather than "understand". "Understand" can only refer to an objective fact that can be verified, proven, etc. 2. While some "regular people" (including myself) share your views…
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/understand
Definition of understand
1a : to grasp the meaning of
b : to grasp the reasonableness of
c : to have thorough or technical acquaintance with or expertness in the practice of
d : to be thoroughly familiar with the character and propensities of
Reminds me of how Facebook wanted to offer free internet access to a limited number of services to people in India and Africa. My understanding is it got canned because people were mad about it not being full internet access. Full gift horse in mouth. The people who would rather others have no internet access than limited internet irk me so badly.
If I remember correctly it was facebook access, not internet. I can imagine it is security risk for local goverments. Facebook could control elections etc...
This article seems like a major failure of both imagination and empathy. Paying homeless people $20 a day to be wifi hotspots or paying people's bills on the condition that they become vegan helps in the moment , but these solutions are actively harmful in the long term if practiced as a default response to the problems they ostensibly address. Such "solutions" calcify in people's minds, and provide a convenient excu…
Perfect is the enemy of good. Sure, giving a homeless person $20 doesn’t solve homelessness but it does a lot more good than dreaming about utopian systemic shifts that are never going to happen.
The argument that we can profit from the poor by giving them a small amount of money that is better than the nothing they usually get, and still be criticized because it is not enough reminds me of the ultimatum game. Here we have two players, the first player has a plan to win a a million dollars, but for the plan to work, the second player needs to cooperate, if he doesn't everything is lost. The plan is perfectly…
An important point is that this is only true if there can only be one offer and no chance of re-negotiation. Player 2 knows that their cooperation has value, and has negotiating power because of it.