8 ms·

Oh, good grief. The article is a list of cases where the "improvement" provided by a given group is most often characterized as "taking advantage of someone els

Oh, good grief. The article is a list of cases where the "improvement" provided by a given group is most often characterized as "taking advantage of someone else when they are in a difficult situation".

witty_username 11y ago
But the "improvements" aren't really harming anybody that much, it's not like Scientology or something.
tomjen3 11y ago
Thats their point: it is most often (incorrectly) characterised as "taking advantage of some else when they are in a difficult situation". In all cases the people involved could simply choose not to take the offer, and be no worse of. They didn't, so presumably they would be better of taking the offer, regardless of what we think.
- mercurial 11y ago
  Take the PETA case: their "improvement" is something that these families would not agree to do if they were not in this situation (most likely). Or surge pricing: the net effect is pricing out people with a lower income, while there are other, more fair solutions to the problem. > In all cases the people involved could simply choose not to take the offer, and be no worse of. That's the same kind of logic which gets you social advances like zero-hour contracts.
  - ggreer 11y ago
    You are falling victim to the moral illusion described by the article. Every case was an improvement upon the status quo, yet you criticize PETA and Uber as if they made things worse. Helping a little (even if you benefit) is better than not helping at all.
    - millstone 11y ago
      Should we avoid criticizing brutal dictatorships because they are an improvement over anarchy? With 25 thousand facing water shutoffs, PETA offered help for up to ten people - technically an improvement on the status quo. But they also inserted their own agenda, diverting attention from Detroit's poverty and unemployment issues to the ethics of using animal products. This is definitely a worse outcome for the remaining 25k - 10 Detroit residents. It's fair to consider PETA's hijacking of the issue as a cost imposed on those affected by it.
      - ggreer 11y ago
        > Should we avoid criticizing brutal dictatorships because they are an improvement over anarchy? No, and only an incredibly uncharitable reading of my comment could suggest otherwise. What is it about this topic that makes people go crazy? The examples in the article involved: donating to the homeless, paying people's water bills, and taxi pricing. The comments here have brought up slavery, selling drugs to addicts, and avoiding criticism of brutal dictatorships. Please, try to retain a sense of proportion. It could be argued that outrage over PETA brought more attention to the problems of Detroit. I didn't know about the water shutoff until my Facebook feed was full of PETA hate. But it doesn't matter. People didn't get angry at PETA for "diverting attention." They got angry at PETA because PETA only helped a little bit.
    - mercurial 11y ago
      It's more complicated than that. If you look at the "local" outcome of the situation, both participants benefit. However, if this spreads and becomes the "new normal" (eg, zero-hour contracts), this can result in a net diminution of social good compared to alternative outcomes where employers would have offered better terms to their employees. I think that's the issue people have with this kind of "improvement".
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        Exactly. This is a "thin end of the wedge" argument. If you agree that certain actions can be moral in limited circumstances, you also agree to support the moral logic they're based on, on principle - even if that moral logic does huge harm elsewhere. It's a superficially clever rhetorical argument, but it's not a very moral one. If you're a poor person, you don't want to be in situation where PETA are offering to interfere in your life to make a political point - you want to be in a situation where you're not poor in the first place. There's no point saying that bandaids can stop people bleeding and people who don't want to use them are bad, if you don't address why there are flesh wounds everywhere you look. Are bandaids better than nothing? They are. But there are still people trying to fix the flesh wounds. Does the author support them, or not?
  - slackson 11y ago
    So what if the PETA case offers a deal that is accepted under the circumstances those families are actually in? All offers and trades are contingent on the circumstances someone's in - you wouldn't take a job with a $20/hour salary if you have the education and skills for something higher-paying than that, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to offer wages of $20/hour. The "more fair" solutions to the problem of surge pricing involve either Uber themselves paying out of pocket, drivers not receiving fair compensation, or neglecting to tackle the problem at all.
    - mercurial 11y ago
      > So what if the PETA case offers a deal that is accepted under the circumstances those families are actually in? Where does it stop? How is that morally different from a $denomination religious charity offering aid conditioned on your family joining the faith? I find that disgusting and manipulative. And that's not the worst. To take another example, it's like an insurance company offering to lower your costs in exchange for having your driving and dietary habits tracked. It's all voluntary, sure. Except that ten years later, the rest of the market has taken note and it has become mandatory. > The "more fair" solutions to the problem of surge pricing involve either Uber themselves paying out of pocket, drivers not receiving fair compensation, or neglecting to tackle the problem at all. Random assignment would be a fair outcome, where everybody gets paid, and people get a chance of getting a ride.
      - golemotron 11y ago
        We keep trying to make a world that is completely fair but as long as we have freedom it won't be. I think it's more important to have freedom because it drives progress. People don't want a chance at a ride, they want a ride. And that desire is the fuel that drives us.
        mercurial 11y ago
        > We keep trying to make a world that is completely fair but as long as we have freedom it won't be. I think it's more important to have freedom because it drives progress. Why do you make the issue into a bizarre dilemma between freedom and fairness? > People don't want a chance at a ride, they want a ride. And that desire is the fuel that drives us. What does this have to with anything? Not everybody can have a ride in this situation. The question is only about the system you use to attribute rides.
- kybernetikos 11y ago
  Slavery also falls under this category. People in desperate enough straits might choose it, since it guarantees them food and lodgings, yet most people have a problem with the concept. Offering jobs at less than the minimum wage is also exactly this too - people accepting those jobs are in a better position than if the jobs weren't available, yet many modern free societies have minimum wages. Selling drugs to addicts falls under this category too, since if they didn't have the drugs easily available, they might do something worse to get them, and clearly they're chosing to buy them so they must be better off having them.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    In the hypothetical that someone agreed to slavery to avoid certain death (and death that would have occurred regardless of the slave owner), then yes - the slave owner has helped the slave. The same applies to your other examples. You and I are currently paying billions of low skill workers exactly $0/hour. Why are we morally blameless, but the person offering $3/hour is a villain?
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    I think slavery is an extreme example and extreme examples are often exceptions, because, unlike your low paying job, a slave can't leave. As for addicts, in a society that didn't outlaw drugs, they wouldn't have much more trouble living a normal life than people who need coffee to function.
  - nine_k 11y ago
    Consider joining an army. By that, you're offered food, lodging, and training. You're also severely limited in what you can do, where to go, somewhat you can talk about. On top of that, you must unconditionally obey orders, even if the orders are clearly putting you in a danger of death. Should this be banned, too?
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >Consider joining an army. By that, you're offered food, lodging, and training. You're also severely limited in what you can do, where to go, somewhat you can talk about. On top of that, you must unconditionally obey orders, even if the orders are clearly putting you in a danger of death. Should this be banned, too? It should obviously be. In fact the army has a long-ass history of setting up recruiting offices and exploting the most poor and desperate with false promises and BS to go do the fighting. From Alabama and Mississipi down to Los Angeles, those recruiting offices are choke full of blacks, latinos and "white trash" sent to die (and kill) while privileged white folks enjoy their "patriotism".
- scotty79 11y ago
  Ok. So if I approach poor women to have sex with me for money (let's say 20 bock) then I'm good and moral person because I offer them some relief from their hardships and if it wasn't beneficial for them then they'd refuse?
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    No, you are merely not evil.
- rtpg 11y ago
  people in dire situations do not make rational decisions (hell, people not in dire situations don't either, which is why this[1] exists). [1]:http://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/ http://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/
coldtea 11y ago
Yes, and the core idea of the article is what has been used for ages to justify such "taking advantage" by pointing a the marginal improvements. Besides the ethical "taking advantage" thing (treating people in need differently that people not in need), which one might agree or disagree it exists, a core problem is that keeping those people in need is exactly what keeps this machine going. So businesses offering below minimum wage wages to people (e.g. if it's not regulated in their state), would point how these people are better off with those wages than nothing, and that they chose to accept the work because of that. But the same businesses, the politicians they lobby, and the way the vote and affect the market with their influence, also try to ensure that nothing is changed (legaly, infrastructure etc) to deplete their pool of desperate people. E.g. by advocating against minimum wage and other labor protections.
- Sven7 11y ago
  Fully agree. All I'll add is with the tech industry "keeping people in need" happens at a scale and speed that has never happened before. Hyper efficient scaling does one thing extremely well - inequality.

witty_username 11y ago

But the "improvements" aren't really harming anybody that much, it's not like Scientology or something.

tomjen3 11y ago

Thats their point: it is most often (incorrectly) characterised as "taking advantage of some else when they are in a difficult situation". In all cases the people involved could simply choose not to take the offer, and be no worse of. They didn't, so presumably they would be better of taking the offer, regardless of what we think.

mercurial 11y ago
Take the PETA case: their "improvement" is something that these families would not agree to do if they were not in this situation (most likely). Or surge pricing: the net effect is pricing out people with a lower income, while there are other, more fair solutions to the problem. > In all cases the people involved could simply choose not to take the offer, and be no worse of. That's the same kind of logic which gets you social advances like zero-hour contracts.
- ggreer 11y ago
  You are falling victim to the moral illusion described by the article. Every case was an improvement upon the status quo, yet you criticize PETA and Uber as if they made things worse. Helping a little (even if you benefit) is better than not helping at all.
  - millstone 11y ago
    Should we avoid criticizing brutal dictatorships because they are an improvement over anarchy? With 25 thousand facing water shutoffs, PETA offered help for up to ten people - technically an improvement on the status quo. But they also inserted their own agenda, diverting attention from Detroit's poverty and unemployment issues to the ethics of using animal products. This is definitely a worse outcome for the remaining 25k - 10 Detroit residents. It's fair to consider PETA's hijacking of the issue as a cost imposed on those affected by it.
    - ggreer 11y ago
      > Should we avoid criticizing brutal dictatorships because they are an improvement over anarchy? No, and only an incredibly uncharitable reading of my comment could suggest otherwise. What is it about this topic that makes people go crazy? The examples in the article involved: donating to the homeless, paying people's water bills, and taxi pricing. The comments here have brought up slavery, selling drugs to addicts, and avoiding criticism of brutal dictatorships. Please, try to retain a sense of proportion. It could be argued that outrage over PETA brought more attention to the problems of Detroit. I didn't know about the water shutoff until my Facebook feed was full of PETA hate. But it doesn't matter. People didn't get angry at PETA for "diverting attention." They got angry at PETA because PETA only helped a little bit.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    It's more complicated than that. If you look at the "local" outcome of the situation, both participants benefit. However, if this spreads and becomes the "new normal" (eg, zero-hour contracts), this can result in a net diminution of social good compared to alternative outcomes where employers would have offered better terms to their employees. I think that's the issue people have with this kind of "improvement".
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      Exactly. This is a "thin end of the wedge" argument. If you agree that certain actions can be moral in limited circumstances, you also agree to support the moral logic they're based on, on principle - even if that moral logic does huge harm elsewhere. It's a superficially clever rhetorical argument, but it's not a very moral one. If you're a poor person, you don't want to be in situation where PETA are offering to interfere in your life to make a political point - you want to be in a situation where you're not poor in the first place. There's no point saying that bandaids can stop people bleeding and people who don't want to use them are bad, if you don't address why there are flesh wounds everywhere you look. Are bandaids better than nothing? They are. But there are still people trying to fix the flesh wounds. Does the author support them, or not?
- slackson 11y ago
  So what if the PETA case offers a deal that is accepted under the circumstances those families are actually in? All offers and trades are contingent on the circumstances someone's in - you wouldn't take a job with a $20/hour salary if you have the education and skills for something higher-paying than that, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to offer wages of $20/hour. The "more fair" solutions to the problem of surge pricing involve either Uber themselves paying out of pocket, drivers not receiving fair compensation, or neglecting to tackle the problem at all.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    > So what if the PETA case offers a deal that is accepted under the circumstances those families are actually in? Where does it stop? How is that morally different from a $denomination religious charity offering aid conditioned on your family joining the faith? I find that disgusting and manipulative. And that's not the worst. To take another example, it's like an insurance company offering to lower your costs in exchange for having your driving and dietary habits tracked. It's all voluntary, sure. Except that ten years later, the rest of the market has taken note and it has become mandatory. > The "more fair" solutions to the problem of surge pricing involve either Uber themselves paying out of pocket, drivers not receiving fair compensation, or neglecting to tackle the problem at all. Random assignment would be a fair outcome, where everybody gets paid, and people get a chance of getting a ride.
    - golemotron 11y ago
      We keep trying to make a world that is completely fair but as long as we have freedom it won't be. I think it's more important to have freedom because it drives progress. People don't want a chance at a ride, they want a ride. And that desire is the fuel that drives us.
      - mercurial 11y ago
        > We keep trying to make a world that is completely fair but as long as we have freedom it won't be. I think it's more important to have freedom because it drives progress. Why do you make the issue into a bizarre dilemma between freedom and fairness? > People don't want a chance at a ride, they want a ride. And that desire is the fuel that drives us. What does this have to with anything? Not everybody can have a ride in this situation. The question is only about the system you use to attribute rides.
kybernetikos 11y ago
Slavery also falls under this category. People in desperate enough straits might choose it, since it guarantees them food and lodgings, yet most people have a problem with the concept. Offering jobs at less than the minimum wage is also exactly this too - people accepting those jobs are in a better position than if the jobs weren't available, yet many modern free societies have minimum wages. Selling drugs to addicts falls under this category too, since if they didn't have the drugs easily available, they might do something worse to get them, and clearly they're chosing to buy them so they must be better off having them.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  In the hypothetical that someone agreed to slavery to avoid certain death (and death that would have occurred regardless of the slave owner), then yes - the slave owner has helped the slave. The same applies to your other examples. You and I are currently paying billions of low skill workers exactly $0/hour. Why are we morally blameless, but the person offering $3/hour is a villain?
- tomjen3 11y ago
  I think slavery is an extreme example and extreme examples are often exceptions, because, unlike your low paying job, a slave can't leave. As for addicts, in a society that didn't outlaw drugs, they wouldn't have much more trouble living a normal life than people who need coffee to function.
- nine_k 11y ago
  Consider joining an army. By that, you're offered food, lodging, and training. You're also severely limited in what you can do, where to go, somewhat you can talk about. On top of that, you must unconditionally obey orders, even if the orders are clearly putting you in a danger of death. Should this be banned, too?
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Consider joining an army. By that, you're offered food, lodging, and training. You're also severely limited in what you can do, where to go, somewhat you can talk about. On top of that, you must unconditionally obey orders, even if the orders are clearly putting you in a danger of death. Should this be banned, too? It should obviously be. In fact the army has a long-ass history of setting up recruiting offices and exploting the most poor and desperate with false promises and BS to go do the fighting. From Alabama and Mississipi down to Los Angeles, those recruiting offices are choke full of blacks, latinos and "white trash" sent to die (and kill) while privileged white folks enjoy their "patriotism".
scotty79 11y ago
Ok. So if I approach poor women to have sex with me for money (let's say 20 bock) then I'm good and moral person because I offer them some relief from their hardships and if it wasn't beneficial for them then they'd refuse?
- tomjen3 11y ago
  No, you are merely not evil.
rtpg 11y ago
people in dire situations do not make rational decisions (hell, people not in dire situations don't either, which is why this[1] exists). [1]:http://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/ http://www.nickkolenda.com/psychological-pricing-strategies/

coldtea 11y ago

Yes, and the core idea of the article is what has been used for ages to justify such "taking advantage" by pointing a the marginal improvements. Besides the ethical "taking advantage" thing (treating people in need differently that people not in need), which one might agree or disagree it exists, a core problem is that keeping those people in need is exactly what keeps this machine going. So businesses offering below minimum wage wages to people (e.g. if it's not regulated in their state), would point how these people are better off with those wages than nothing, and that they chose to accept the work because of that. But the same businesses, the politicians they lobby, and the way the vote and affect the market with their influence, also try to ensure that nothing is changed (legaly, infrastructure etc) to deplete their pool of desperate people. E.g. by advocating against minimum wage and other labor protections.

Sven7 11y ago
Fully agree. All I'll add is with the tech industry "keeping people in need" happens at a scale and speed that has never happened before. Hyper efficient scaling does one thing extremely well - inequality.