4 ms·

>How is offering a previously non-existent option extortion, again? Say I go to a third world country and find some orphan who has been left to fend for themse

>How is offering a previously non-existent option extortion, again? Say I go to a third world country and find some orphan who has been left to fend for themself. I make them an offer to effectively become a slave in return for being given basic care. Say I do this in which ever country gives me the most power to in-debt them to me. They can refuse and continue what ever life they were living. Is this extortion or exploitation?

jdmichal 11y ago
I'm going to assume a generous use of the word "slave" here, as simply a parallel for the loss of freedom that would be experienced by being detained. As opposed to associations of that word to terribly abusive situations, because abuse is never OK. > extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats. > exploitation - the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. Well, since you're not threatening the person nor forcing them to enter into this arrangement, I don't really see how you can call it extortion. Unless you want to call leaving them in their current situation a threat, which would be kind of stretching the intent, as that would imply that I am performing violence (the execution of a threat) against every person in need that I am not helping. You could certainly call it exploitation, with the reasoning that providing only basic care in exchange for the services they render is unfair treatment. This would along the same lines as the justification for minimum wage and other employee protections -- that there is some standard minimum that must be met for these relationships. Of course, there are plenty of flaws with this analogy. I can gloss over most of them, except for the nuance that there is a reason as a matter of law that this person is in their original situation to begin with. I think a better parallel would be an exile, perhaps? * Definitions derived from Google. Feel free to provide your own if you feel they are inaccurate and I will reevaluate.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  How can it be exploitation if they have fully freedom in choosing to forgo the deal? >As opposed to associations of that word to terribly abusive situations, because abuse is never OK. Even if it was as bad as the association you are making, it is merely a choice. >Unless you want to call leaving them in their current situation a threat Here is where most people's moral systems break down. If their current situation involves death, then any deal where you benefit is seen as exploitation unless they think the exchange is fair. But doing absolutely nothing, offering nothing and taking nothing, is seen as a neutral choice. But only to an extent. If you turn away a starving child at your doorstep, the action is seen as abhorrent. But if don't donate money to help feed a starving child elsewhere, even though such an action is easier than helping the child at the doorstep, that is just normal. There almost seems to be some moral corollary to the bystander effect.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    > How can it be exploitation if they have fully freedom in choosing to forgo the deal? I detailed my reasoning in the response. Specifically, that the exchange of basic care for the services rendered may not be considered a "fair" exchange [0], and thus being unfair treatment, and thus being exploitation. In regards to morality, I agree with your sentiments. Bystander effect isn't the right word for it, but it feels very similar. More of an out-of-sight-out-of-mind, willful-ignorance thing. You can't claim ignorance when the child is at your doorstep asking you for help, but you can when they're somewhere else. There could also be an angle there with protection of one's own social / familial group over others, even if it means preventable harm to the other group. Also, I'd like to thank you for this reasonable and engaging exchange. [0] This would, of course, be a culturally sensitive judgement.

jdmichal 11y ago

I'm going to assume a generous use of the word "slave" here, as simply a parallel for the loss of freedom that would be experienced by being detained. As opposed to associations of that word to terribly abusive situations, because abuse is never OK. > extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats. > exploitation - the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. Well, since you're not threatening the person nor forcing them to enter into this arrangement, I don't really see how you can call it extortion. Unless you want to call leaving them in their current situation a threat, which would be kind of stretching the intent, as that would imply that I am performing violence (the execution of a threat) against every person in need that I am not helping. You could certainly call it exploitation, with the reasoning that providing only basic care in exchange for the services they render is unfair treatment. This would along the same lines as the justification for minimum wage and other employee protections -- that there is some standard minimum that must be met for these relationships. Of course, there are plenty of flaws with this analogy. I can gloss over most of them, except for the nuance that there is a reason as a matter of law that this person is in their original situation to begin with. I think a better parallel would be an exile, perhaps? * Definitions derived from Google. Feel free to provide your own if you feel they are inaccurate and I will reevaluate.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
How can it be exploitation if they have fully freedom in choosing to forgo the deal? >As opposed to associations of that word to terribly abusive situations, because abuse is never OK. Even if it was as bad as the association you are making, it is merely a choice. >Unless you want to call leaving them in their current situation a threat Here is where most people's moral systems break down. If their current situation involves death, then any deal where you benefit is seen as exploitation unless they think the exchange is fair. But doing absolutely nothing, offering nothing and taking nothing, is seen as a neutral choice. But only to an extent. If you turn away a starving child at your doorstep, the action is seen as abhorrent. But if don't donate money to help feed a starving child elsewhere, even though such an action is easier than helping the child at the doorstep, that is just normal. There almost seems to be some moral corollary to the bystander effect.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  > How can it be exploitation if they have fully freedom in choosing to forgo the deal? I detailed my reasoning in the response. Specifically, that the exchange of basic care for the services rendered may not be considered a "fair" exchange [0], and thus being unfair treatment, and thus being exploitation. In regards to morality, I agree with your sentiments. Bystander effect isn't the right word for it, but it feels very similar. More of an out-of-sight-out-of-mind, willful-ignorance thing. You can't claim ignorance when the child is at your doorstep asking you for help, but you can when they're somewhere else. There could also be an angle there with protection of one's own social / familial group over others, even if it means preventable harm to the other group. Also, I'd like to thank you for this reasonable and engaging exchange. [0] This would, of course, be a culturally sensitive judgement.