How could it be wrong to exploit – say, by paying sweatshop wages – if the exploited party benefits? How could it be wrong to do something gratuitously bad – like giving to a wasteful charity – if that is better than permissibly doing nothing? Joe Horton argues that these puzzles, known as the Exploitation Problem and All or Nothing Problem, have no unified answer. I propose one and pose a challenge for Horton’s take on the Exploitation Problem.
ArnesonR (2013) Exploitation and outcome. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics12: 392–412.
2.
AshfordE (2018) Severe poverty as an unjust emergency. In: WoodruffP (ed) The Ethics of Giving: Philosophers’ Perspectives on Philanthropy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 103–148.
3.
BaderR (2019) Agent-relative prerogatives and suboptimal beneficence. In: TimmonsM (ed) Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume 9. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–250.
4.
BaileyAD (2011) The nonworseness claim and the moral permissibility of better-than-permissible acts. Philosophia39: 237–250.
BerkeyB (2019) Sweatshops, structural injustice, and the wrong of exploitation: why multinational corporations have positive duties to the global poor. Journal of Business Ethics. Epub ahead of print 15 October 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-019-04299-1.
7.
BradleyB (2016) Against satisficing consequentialism. Utilitas18: 97–108.
8.
CarensJH (2013) The Ethics of Immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
ChangR (2002) The possibility of parity. Ethics112: 659–688.
10.
CoakleyMKatesM (2013) The ethical and economic case for sweatshop regulation. Journal of Business Ethics117: 553–558.
11.
FaraciD (2019) Wage exploitation and the nonworseness claim: allowing the wrong, to do more good. Business Ethics Quarterly29: 169–188.
12.
FehigeC (1994) The limit assumption in deontic (and prohairetic) logic. In: MeggleGWesselsU (eds) Analyomen 1: Proceedings of the 1st Conference, Perspectives in Analytic Philosophy. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 42–56.
13.
FergusonB (2016) The paradox of exploitation. Erkenntnis81: 951–972.
14.
FergusonBKöhlerS (2019) Betterness of permissibility. Philosophical Studies. Epub ahead of print 18 June 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-019-01319-8.
15.
GertJ (2007) Normative strength and the balance of reasons. Philosophical Review116: 533–562.
16.
Gordon-Solmon K (n.d.) When saving more is worse than saving none: a study of two cases. Unpublished draft of 14 January 2021.
17.
HortonJ (2017) The all or nothing problem. Journal of Philosophy114: 94–104.
18.
HortonJ (2019) The exploitation problem. Journal of Political Philosophy27: 469–479.
19.
HurkaTShubertE (2012) Permissions to do less than best: a moving band. In: TimmonsM (ed) Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–27.
20.
HurleyP (2017) Why consequentialism’s “compelling” idea is not. Social Theory and Practice43: 29–54.
21.
KaganS (1989) The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
KammF (1996) Morality, Mortality, Volume II: Rights, Duties, and Status. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
KammF (2007) Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McMahanJ (2018) Doing good and doing the best. In: WoodruffP (ed) The Ethics of Giving: Philosophers’ Perspectives on Philanthropy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 78–102.
26.
MalmqvistE (2017) Better to exploit than to neglect? International clinical research and the non-worseness claim. Journal of Applied Philosophy34: 474–488.
27.
MuñozD (2020a) Three paradoxes of supererogation. Noûs. Epub ahead of print 5 February 2020. DOI: 10.1111/nous.12326.
28.
MuñozD (2020b) From rights to prerogatives. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Epub ahead of print 27 February 2020. DOI: 10.1111/phpr.12682.
29.
ParfitD (1982) Future generations: further problems. Philosophy and Public Affairs11: 113–172.
30.
PortmoreD (2011) Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
PortmoreD (2019) Opting for the Best: Oughts and Options. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
PostowB (2005) Supererogation again. Journal of Value Inquiry39: 245–253.
33.
PowellBZwolinskiM (2012) The ethical and economic case against sweatshop labor: a critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics107: 449–472.
34.
PummerT (2016) Whether and where to give. Philosophy and Public Affairs44: 77–95.
35.
PummerT (2019) All or nothing, but if not all, next best or nothing. Journal of Philosophy116: 278–291.
RulliT (2020) Conditional obligations. Social Theory and Practice46: 365–390.
38.
RulliTWorsnipA (2016) IIA, rationality, and the individuation of options. Philosophical Studies173: 205–221.
39.
SchefflerS (1982) The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
SinclairT (2018) Are we conditionally obligated to be effective altruists?Philosophy and Public Affairs46: 36–59.
41.
SloteM (1984) Morality and self-other asymmetry. Journal of Philosophy81: 179–192.
42.
SnedegarJ (2015) Contrastivism about reasons and ought. Philosophy Compass10: 379–388.
43.
SnedegarJ (2016) Reasons, oughts, and requirements. In: Shafer-LandauR (ed) Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume9. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 183–211.
44.
TadrosV (2011) The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
VrousalisN (2013) Exploitation, vulnerability, and social domination. Philosophy and Public Affairs41(2): 131–157.
46.
WertheimerA (1996) Exploitation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
ZwolinskiM (2009) Price gouging, non-worseness, and distributive justice. Business Ethics Quarterly19: 295–306.
