4 ms·

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

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".
  - nine_k 11y ago
    No, I mean a professional army that people join entirely voluntarily. They still voluntarily agree to limit some of their fundamental rights, be ordered around and even be killed.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      "Voluntarily" doesn't mean the same for the trust-fund kid and the poor guy with no outlet in some backwater town.
pdkl95 11y ago
s/slavery/indentured servitude/ By definition slavery isn't voluntary. Not that this changes your argument; servitude is banned internationally for approximately the same reasons as slavery. > people accepting [less than minimum wage] jobs are in a better position than if the jobs weren't available This is yet another example of the problem of using "profit" as the primary (or only) metric for human progress. Are the people given non-livable wages in a more profitable position than if those jobs weren't available? Does the job improve their situation in general? Is the job using using low wages Wallmart-style to offload a portion of their personnel costs on taxpayers by paying such a small amount all employees are expected to always use government services?[1] It is of vital importance to ask a wide variety of these questions. Using a single metric is p almost always going to give you an incomplete view of the situation. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...

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".
- nine_k 11y ago
  No, I mean a professional army that people join entirely voluntarily. They still voluntarily agree to limit some of their fundamental rights, be ordered around and even be killed.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    "Voluntarily" doesn't mean the same for the trust-fund kid and the poor guy with no outlet in some backwater town.

pdkl95 11y ago

s/slavery/indentured servitude/ By definition slavery isn't voluntary. Not that this changes your argument; servitude is banned internationally for approximately the same reasons as slavery. > people accepting [less than minimum wage] jobs are in a better position than if the jobs weren't available This is yet another example of the problem of using "profit" as the primary (or only) metric for human progress. Are the people given non-livable wages in a more profitable position than if those jobs weren't available? Does the job improve their situation in general? Is the job using using low wages Wallmart-style to offload a portion of their personnel costs on taxpayers by paying such a small amount all employees are expected to always use government services?[1] It is of vital importance to ask a wide variety of these questions. Using a single metric is p almost always going to give you an incomplete view of the situation. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...