Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Matt Zwolinski argues that exploitation charges conflate making someone worse off with failing to make them as well off as possible.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Power imbalances can make 'acceptance' of unfavorable terms non-voluntary, making failure to offer better terms a form of wrongful coercion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
When one party deliberately withholds available benefits knowing the other has limited alternatives, this instrumental use seems exploitative regardless of baseline harm.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction collapses in cases where one party's desperation is deliberately manufactured or predictably exacerbated by the other's actions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Exploitation requires a moral duty to maximize another's welfare, but duties typically require preventing harm, not ensuring optimal outcomes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Conflating these distinctions enables claims that mutually beneficial exchanges are exploitative merely because parties could theoretically do better.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing harm from suboptimal benefit clarifies when transactions are genuinely coercive versus simply unequal in distribution.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.