Hi Carlos, those who think this not unfair gave me this explanation as well. My biggest concern right now is the “adiaphorism” of the business world. We’ve somehow granted transactions moral sanctuary, free of moral evaluation.
I think you’d agree with me that just because people willingly participate in a transaction doesn’t ipso facto make it fair. That’s because these transactions might be tampered with. For instance, my not telling my employee how much I charge denies her knowledge of her true value in society. My clients could offer her $50 and everyone else’s happier. That hardly happens because I’ve created an ‘epistemic curtain’ between my clients and my employee.
In short, my employee is denied the right to know her true value in society, and yours as well.
Furthermore, just because we willing pay for a service or item we think affordable doesn’t ipso facto make it fair (or not unfair). Nor would it absolve the transaction from moral evaluation. Yes, we may this it’s affordable, we may willingly pay for it, but is this transaction that’s built on blindness really fair?
As such, the exploitation I’m referring to isn’t about physical extortion. It’s an epistemic injustice that we’ve granted moral immunity to. Why think ‘the paradigm of fairness’ shouldn’t apply to transactions like this?
Thanks for sharing, though. I’d love to read your response to this :)