In a thread in politics, it is being argued that corporations are moral to pressure workers to get them to work as hard as they can for as little money as the company can get away with. Whether that be by busting unions, or demanding wage secrecy, by depressing competition or by basically failing to compensate both line workers and middle class workers when they factually increase productivity, keeping the money in all cases for the compensation of executives or shareholders.
I wonder, in what way is this any different than a schoolyard bully using his strength to take your lunch money? You volunteer to give him you lunch money, right? Because you “could always choose” to take the beating, right? Just like you “could always choose” to get a different job if someone is ripping you off (and you can detect it). You always have that choice. So giving him your lunch money is something he’s given you a choice about and therefore it is moral. Likewise it is moral for a corporation to try to take the profits earned by the increased productivty of the workers and put them in executive pockets - because they can.
Discussion: Morally, what are the differences in these two situations, if any? What are the arguments for difference or similarity?
I wonder, in what way is this any different than a schoolyard bully using his strength to take your lunch money? You volunteer to give him you lunch money, right? Because you “could always choose” to take the beating, right? Just like you “could always choose” to get a different job if someone is ripping you off (and you can detect it). You always have that choice. So giving him your lunch money is something he’s given you a choice about and therefore it is moral. Likewise it is moral for a corporation to try to take the profits earned by the increased productivty of the workers and put them in executive pockets - because they can.
Discussion: Morally, what are the differences in these two situations, if any? What are the arguments for difference or similarity?