Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:47:18.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPLOITATION AND DISADVANTAGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2015

Benjamin Ferguson
Benjamin Ferguson*
Affiliation:
Universität Bayreuth, Department of Philosophy, Bayreuth, 95440, Germany. Email: b.r.ferguson@vu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

According to some accounts of exploitation, most notably Ruth Sample’s (2003) degradation-based account and Robert Goodin’s (1987) vulnerability-based account, exploitation occurs when an advantaged party fails to constrain their advantage in light of another’s disadvantage, regardless of the cause of this disadvantage. Because the duty of constraint in these accounts does not depend on the cause of the disadvantage, the advantaged’s duty of constraint is what I call a ‘come-what-may’ duty. I show that come-what-may duties create moral hazards that can themselves be exploited by the disadvantaged parties. In such cases these accounts of exploitation are either self-frustrating or over-demanding.

Keywords

ExploitationDisadvantageResponsibilityMoral Hazard
Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , November 2016 , pp. 485 - 509
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arneson, R. 1992. Exploitation. In The Encyclopedia of Ethics, ed. Becker, L., 350. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1982. Roemer versus Roemer: a comment on “New Directions in the Marxian Theory of Exploitation and Class”. Politics and Society 11: 363–373.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 1995. Equal opportunity or equal social outcome? Economics and Philosophy 11: 25–55.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2008. Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. 1986. Protecting the Vulnerable: A Re-Analysis of Our Social Responsibilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. 1987. Exploiting a situation and exploiting a person. In Modern Theories of Exploitation, ed. Reeve, A., 166–197. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2003. Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics 9: 33–59.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. 1982. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sample, R. 2003. Exploitation: What it is and Why it’s Wrong. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. 1984. A liberal theory of exploitation. Ethics 94: 225–241.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. 1987. Exploitation: A liberal theory amended, defended and extended. In Modern Theories of Exploitation, ed. Reeve, A., 132–148. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. 1994. An Essay On Rights. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stemplowska, Z. 2009. Making justice sensitive to responsibility. Political Studies 57: 237–259.Google Scholar
Wood, A. 1995. Exploitation. Social Philosophy and Policy 12: 135–158.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, A. 1996. Exploitation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, A. 2007. Review: Ruth J. Sample, Exploitation: What It is and Why It’s Wrong. Utilitas 19: 259–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar