10 ms·

As an example of the harm that this ethical theory causes, consider the YC startup Markhor. They employ shoe makers in Pakistan and treat them significantly bet

As an example of the harm that this ethical theory causes, consider the YC startup Markhor. They employ shoe makers in Pakistan and treat them significantly better than other employment options - reasonable hours, higher pay, safe work places, etc. Also, when a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her so as not to "exploit" her, thereby making it necessary for her to work unreasonable hours for lower pay in a more unsafe workplace. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10057973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10057973 I doubt the founders of Markhor are unaware of this, they are just coldheartedly appealing to the Copenhagen ethical theories of their customers.

mercurial 11y ago
> Also, when a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her so as not to "exploit" her, thereby making it necessary for her to work unreasonable hours for lower pay in a more unsafe workplace. Is it a question of "exploitation" or is it a question of it being dangerous to their health? If it is actually dangerous for them, then it would be reasonable, IMHO, to treat this the same as when one of your employee is sick.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Even if it is dangerous to their health, is it more dangerous than the alternate options? According to the founders of Markhor, it's safer.
coldtea 11y ago
>Also, when a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her so as not to "exploit" her, thereby making it necessary for her to work unreasonable hours for lower pay in a more unsafe workplace. How about they give her maternity leave and such? Like they would do for their non-shoe-making executives...
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Why don't you pay for her maternity leave and such? Near as I can tell, you, me and Markhor are all in the same moral boat - none of us are paying for this hypothetical woman to sit at home enjoying pregnancy. You and I have simply never touched or interacted with her, so according to the Copenhagen theory of ethics we get a moral pass.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Why don't you pay for her maternity leave and such? Because I'm not making money off of her. >Near as I can tell, you, me and Markhor are all in the same moral boat - none of us are paying for this hypothetical woman to sit at home enjoying pregnancy. Only, one of us has used the $x an hour work of that woman up to that point, to make $xxx products that they sell.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Because I'm not making money off of her. Ok, you are pretty explicitly appealing to the Copenhagen theory of ethics. Good to have that out in the open. Since I'm more utilitarian and I don't take Copenhagen as my moral axiom, we'll obviously disagree. Now we understand why.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >Ok, you are pretty explicitly appealing to the Copenhagen theory of ethics. Good to have that out in the open. I don't appeal to any such BS. The so called "Copenhagen theory of ethics" is an ill-thought neologism of the writer of the blog post, and lacks several metric tons of nuances and considerations. The basic premise -- that a third-party has the same "moral obligation" to pay her maternity leave as the person who employeed her, made money of her (the total balanace was positive on THEIR side, not hers) and fired her when she become pregnant, is absurd. Not only that, but protections against firing an employee that became pregnant are an accepted part of the legal and moral obligations of an employee, enforced by law in most developed countries. If anything the burden of proof is on the author of TFA to counter the thinking of all those legislators. I would also like to know how a deal like "I'll give you food everyday for having sex with you" to a poor woman who hates the idea, but is starving and thus accepts it, is any different than the situations lauded by the author of TFA article. After all the woman is better off, right? She would be starving or even dead from hunger. And she accepted the deal by her own volition.
nhaehnle 11y ago
It is easy to come up with examples where this ethical theory leads to ridiculous outcomes. At the same time, it would be foolish to completely dismiss it. Many of the examples listed in the article under discussion here give people the impression that exploitation is going on. And the broader point that is often ignored by self-proclaimed rational folks is that changing our society to accept arrangements that look like exploitation (even if they technically aren't) may itself cause damage, by increasing the acceptance of arrangements that are actually exploitation. Of course, that effect is basically impossible to measure, and self-proclaimed rational folks tend to ignore the hard-to-measure. Basically, there are underlying reasons for people to have Copenhagen-like reactions, even if they themselves are unable to articulate them.
chrisoverzero 11y ago
> […] When a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her […] Do you have another source for that? Your link doesn't appear to imply what you claim. > And of course they'll be welcome to make shoes for us if they want to, since the conditions of such work will be much better.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  "We believe no one wants to wear a pair of shoes/clothing made by a child or a pregnant women under abusive conditions." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058171 Do you believe I'm misinterpreting him, and that pregnant women are actually allowed to work for Markhor?
  - chrisoverzero 11y ago
    I do believe that, and I think she did a good job of clarifying herself later in the thread – the bit I quoted from. If you have outside evidence, I'm all for it. But your claim that the company will fire any woman who becomes pregnant isn't backed up by that thread. *Edited for correct pronouns.
  - dang 11y ago
    > Do you believe I'm misinterpreting him Sidra is a she, and yes of course you're misinterpreting her.
dang 11y ago
I think it's unfair of you to take specific people and put an uncharitable spin on an internet thread to impugn them. There isn't nearly enough information there to justify a categorical statement like "when a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her". If you want to debate abstract ethics, fine, but if you bring up factual people you should have some factual evidence. Those comments aren't evidence of firing anybody for being pregnant—they're evidence of how easy it is to get embroiled in the gotcha thread du jour on an internet message board. I seem to recall that you like the Principle of Charity; it's pretty straightforward to come up with a more charitable interpretation of what happened there. (Edit: lest anyone wonders, I don't know the Markhor founders and yes I would defend anyone the same way if they were being treated unfairly on HN.)
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  My reading of the thread was that pregnant women are not allowed to work for Markhor. I interpreted "I personally would love...Unfortunately..." and "Perhaps at some point...we would be able to...see if it needs to be changed for some women" as implying the policy is that pregnant women can't work for them right now, but maybe in the future this could change. To be clear why I'm confused, myself and others interpreted her statements as meaning pregnant women can't work there and explicitly asked about this. I didn't read anyplace where she said "no, pregnant women actually can work for us, techcrunch is wrong and your shoe might be made by a pregnant woman" in response. I'll take your word that I'm brainfarting and pregnant women are actually allowed to work for Markhor after all. I'm still not seeing how that follows from the comment thread, but if that is the case I offer my apologies.
  - pen2l 11y ago
    I think in general Markhor's model of operation is commendable. This transformation of business -- this lifting of the veil, getting to know the backstory of how our products are made, it's great, this transparency, this kind of personalization will make way for better working standards for workers abroad, since we humans tend to be more moved when the intimate and visible details are put in front of our eyes. If I see that the guy making my shoes is making a dignified living, that he's not stuck in a circle of indentured servitude, that's awesome. Also, I wouldn't read into the pregnant woman comment too much. Pakistan is a very different world -- and there is a legitimate concern of pregnant women doing this kind of work. Most "mochies" (folks who work on shoes) do this stuff sitting down on the floor (despite the pic of a guy working on a table on techcrunch article), I cannot think in any way that that is good for a pregnant woman. The Markhor dude messed up in explaining what he was getting at, I think his motives are good, it's probably a language/culture barrier at fault here. That said, the other thing is that there are basically no women mochies in Pakistan. That's just a matter of fact, so uh, women getting fired are not even a concern to begin with. :) tldr: this ain't the company to get your pitchforks ready for -- facebook et al. are a better bet.

mercurial 11y ago

> Also, when a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her so as not to "exploit" her, thereby making it necessary for her to work unreasonable hours for lower pay in a more unsafe workplace. Is it a question of "exploitation" or is it a question of it being dangerous to their health? If it is actually dangerous for them, then it would be reasonable, IMHO, to treat this the same as when one of your employee is sick.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Even if it is dangerous to their health, is it more dangerous than the alternate options? According to the founders of Markhor, it's safer.

coldtea 11y ago

>Also, when a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her so as not to "exploit" her, thereby making it necessary for her to work unreasonable hours for lower pay in a more unsafe workplace. How about they give her maternity leave and such? Like they would do for their non-shoe-making executives...

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Why don't you pay for her maternity leave and such? Near as I can tell, you, me and Markhor are all in the same moral boat - none of us are paying for this hypothetical woman to sit at home enjoying pregnancy. You and I have simply never touched or interacted with her, so according to the Copenhagen theory of ethics we get a moral pass.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Why don't you pay for her maternity leave and such? Because I'm not making money off of her. >Near as I can tell, you, me and Markhor are all in the same moral boat - none of us are paying for this hypothetical woman to sit at home enjoying pregnancy. Only, one of us has used the $x an hour work of that woman up to that point, to make $xxx products that they sell.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Because I'm not making money off of her. Ok, you are pretty explicitly appealing to the Copenhagen theory of ethics. Good to have that out in the open. Since I'm more utilitarian and I don't take Copenhagen as my moral axiom, we'll obviously disagree. Now we understand why.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >Ok, you are pretty explicitly appealing to the Copenhagen theory of ethics. Good to have that out in the open. I don't appeal to any such BS. The so called "Copenhagen theory of ethics" is an ill-thought neologism of the writer of the blog post, and lacks several metric tons of nuances and considerations. The basic premise -- that a third-party has the same "moral obligation" to pay her maternity leave as the person who employeed her, made money of her (the total balanace was positive on THEIR side, not hers) and fired her when she become pregnant, is absurd. Not only that, but protections against firing an employee that became pregnant are an accepted part of the legal and moral obligations of an employee, enforced by law in most developed countries. If anything the burden of proof is on the author of TFA to counter the thinking of all those legislators. I would also like to know how a deal like "I'll give you food everyday for having sex with you" to a poor woman who hates the idea, but is starving and thus accepts it, is any different than the situations lauded by the author of TFA article. After all the woman is better off, right? She would be starving or even dead from hunger. And she accepted the deal by her own volition.

nhaehnle 11y ago

It is easy to come up with examples where this ethical theory leads to ridiculous outcomes. At the same time, it would be foolish to completely dismiss it. Many of the examples listed in the article under discussion here give people the impression that exploitation is going on. And the broader point that is often ignored by self-proclaimed rational folks is that changing our society to accept arrangements that look like exploitation (even if they technically aren't) may itself cause damage, by increasing the acceptance of arrangements that are actually exploitation. Of course, that effect is basically impossible to measure, and self-proclaimed rational folks tend to ignore the hard-to-measure. Basically, there are underlying reasons for people to have Copenhagen-like reactions, even if they themselves are unable to articulate them.

chrisoverzero 11y ago

> […] When a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her […] Do you have another source for that? Your link doesn't appear to imply what you claim. > And of course they'll be welcome to make shoes for us if they want to, since the conditions of such work will be much better.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
"We believe no one wants to wear a pair of shoes/clothing made by a child or a pregnant women under abusive conditions." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10058171 Do you believe I'm misinterpreting him, and that pregnant women are actually allowed to work for Markhor?
- chrisoverzero 11y ago
  I do believe that, and I think she did a good job of clarifying herself later in the thread – the bit I quoted from. If you have outside evidence, I'm all for it. But your claim that the company will fire any woman who becomes pregnant isn't backed up by that thread. *Edited for correct pronouns.
- dang 11y ago
  > Do you believe I'm misinterpreting him Sidra is a she, and yes of course you're misinterpreting her.

dang 11y ago

I think it's unfair of you to take specific people and put an uncharitable spin on an internet thread to impugn them. There isn't nearly enough information there to justify a categorical statement like "when a woman becomes pregnant Markhor will fire her". If you want to debate abstract ethics, fine, but if you bring up factual people you should have some factual evidence. Those comments aren't evidence of firing anybody for being pregnant—they're evidence of how easy it is to get embroiled in the gotcha thread du jour on an internet message board. I seem to recall that you like the Principle of Charity; it's pretty straightforward to come up with a more charitable interpretation of what happened there. (Edit: lest anyone wonders, I don't know the Markhor founders and yes I would defend anyone the same way if they were being treated unfairly on HN.)

yummyfajitas 11y ago
My reading of the thread was that pregnant women are not allowed to work for Markhor. I interpreted "I personally would love...Unfortunately..." and "Perhaps at some point...we would be able to...see if it needs to be changed for some women" as implying the policy is that pregnant women can't work for them right now, but maybe in the future this could change. To be clear why I'm confused, myself and others interpreted her statements as meaning pregnant women can't work there and explicitly asked about this. I didn't read anyplace where she said "no, pregnant women actually can work for us, techcrunch is wrong and your shoe might be made by a pregnant woman" in response. I'll take your word that I'm brainfarting and pregnant women are actually allowed to work for Markhor after all. I'm still not seeing how that follows from the comment thread, but if that is the case I offer my apologies.
- pen2l 11y ago
  I think in general Markhor's model of operation is commendable. This transformation of business -- this lifting of the veil, getting to know the backstory of how our products are made, it's great, this transparency, this kind of personalization will make way for better working standards for workers abroad, since we humans tend to be more moved when the intimate and visible details are put in front of our eyes. If I see that the guy making my shoes is making a dignified living, that he's not stuck in a circle of indentured servitude, that's awesome. Also, I wouldn't read into the pregnant woman comment too much. Pakistan is a very different world -- and there is a legitimate concern of pregnant women doing this kind of work. Most "mochies" (folks who work on shoes) do this stuff sitting down on the floor (despite the pic of a guy working on a table on techcrunch article), I cannot think in any way that that is good for a pregnant woman. The Markhor dude messed up in explaining what he was getting at, I think his motives are good, it's probably a language/culture barrier at fault here. That said, the other thing is that there are basically no women mochies in Pakistan. That's just a matter of fact, so uh, women getting fired are not even a concern to begin with. :) tldr: this ain't the company to get your pitchforks ready for -- facebook et al. are a better bet.