2 ms·

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, b

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

> 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.