Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 17,360
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Many here are still old enough to understand what Soylent Green is: a fictitious food made from human corpses. It is almost certain that even the staunchest conservative on these boards can recognize that the sale, production, or marketing of such a product is one of the most unethical things imaginable.
In the discussion of labor, there is the question of what a fair wage might be, if there even IS such a thing. Consider, though, that a person only has so much time to work a week before it's unhealthy, mentally or physically and that many (most?) employers who are not full time demand their employees to give them first scheduling pick, meaning if someone is not afforded full time, they won't be able to get the hours elsewhere.
So, we are in a situation where making the product is unhealthy for those who must make it. Either they cannot get what they need to live sufficiently, or they can but are forced to conditions that otherwise tax their health. This means that the product chews people, human beings up. A necessary component to produce it, in this scenario is human health that would not be so spent. An ingredient in its making is human life.
How is this different ethically from soylent green, and food that is made from people? Would we allow a business whose product required the daily willful execution of one employee per day? Why then would we allow this execution to happen via neglect of workers' needs rather than through direct murder?
In the discussion of labor, there is the question of what a fair wage might be, if there even IS such a thing. Consider, though, that a person only has so much time to work a week before it's unhealthy, mentally or physically and that many (most?) employers who are not full time demand their employees to give them first scheduling pick, meaning if someone is not afforded full time, they won't be able to get the hours elsewhere.
So, we are in a situation where making the product is unhealthy for those who must make it. Either they cannot get what they need to live sufficiently, or they can but are forced to conditions that otherwise tax their health. This means that the product chews people, human beings up. A necessary component to produce it, in this scenario is human health that would not be so spent. An ingredient in its making is human life.
How is this different ethically from soylent green, and food that is made from people? Would we allow a business whose product required the daily willful execution of one employee per day? Why then would we allow this execution to happen via neglect of workers' needs rather than through direct murder?