3 ms·
Both GGP and indentured servitude's defenders argue that an economic relationship is, by virtue of having been agreed to by both parties, ipso facto non-exploit
by giaour 4y ago
Both GGP and indentured servitude's defenders argue that an economic relationship is, by virtue of having been agreed to by both parties, ipso facto non-exploitative. GP was not saying that gig work and indentured servitude are the same or morally equivalent, just pointing out that both use the same argument.
The logical fallacy is that just because one option is better than the alternatives, it does not follow that the option in question is good. The villain from Saw may let you choose how you will be murdered, but your having chosen to be stabbed instead of drowned doesn't absolve the killer of their culpability in your death.
- gruez 4y ago>The logical fallacy is that just because one option is better than the alternatives, it does not follow that the option in question is good. The villain from Saw may let you choose how you will be murdered, but your having chosen to be stabbed instead of drowned doesn't absolve the killer of their culpability in your death. Except that the victims in saw were unwittingly put in those situations. What's happening with gig workers is closer to something like the squid game, where the participants gave informed consent, and even had an opportunity to bail out later.
- giaour 4y agoEconomic circumstances limit choices, too (though not as explicitly or as definitively as Jigsaw). Most viewers did not see people choosing to participate in the squid game as a victory for economic free choice, but instead as a commentary on how dire someone’s circumstances had become that they would choose to play and later even reaffirm that choice. Someone’s least bad option can still be pretty terrible!