Wow, Carlos, you could've written an article. Others would've benefitted from this as well. So, I appreciate that you've put in time and effort in elaborating.
I think we've largely come to a middle ground here. My main goal is to get people to think about the moral implications of these everyday transactions. Whether we agree in the end is another matter. You realized that what I'm trying to spark here is indeed a "paradigmatic challenge." It is. I'm trying to impose moral evaluations on the free market. And as you've noted, "a paradigmatic shift or discussion is much more difficult, after all, I think that the dismissal of concepts of fairness is an adaptive…response."
As you've said, we shouldn't be "dismissing" morality from the business world. It's really concerning when people say, "That's how businesses are, it has nothing to do with fairness or not." Because that's when we let our sense of normality blind us from morality.
2. You've done an incredible job explaining (to me) why transactions are fair in an economical sense. In other words, if two players agree to the rules of chess, then any unequal outcome is a result of a fair transaction. I agree with this. It doesn't make sense for the loser to start judging the winner's morals.
I don't know if I present my views as such. But they're not. My concerns are nuanced: is it morally right to treat humans (employees) like pieces of the chessboard, subjected to the mere calculations and manipulations of the players?
Suppose that you're part of 32 people being assigned a role as a chess piece in a fair game of chess. You have no idea which role you'll be assigned to, and you have no idea who'll be controlling you. Would you have entered into the game knowing that you have a 50% chance of being a pawn (that's likely to be sacrificed easily and whose value is menial.) Your player could've easily justified to you why being a pawn isn't so bad: "You get to leave the game earlier and find a new chessboard. If I lose, you can easily move on to the next chessboard. If you're the player, you have to deal with defeat and shame. As the pawn, you can just move on! So, it's not really unfair." But importantly: you'll be stuck playing as a pawn for the rest of your life. Your value stays menial while the chess players either get better or weaker.
Now you might object to this and say, we're not chess pieces. And obviously, the value of the pawn doesn't affect the player's standards. And I absolutely agree. But in real life, our values do in fact affect the player's standards. If I'm a good teacher and I bring in many students for my employer, do you think it's fair that I still get paid squats? Of course not. (But I digress.)
So, my concern isn't really about if the transaction between players is fair or not. But really about if we're fairly treating the agents involved in these transactions.
3. I think the biggest thing I'll object to you here is this statement: "People's willingness to pay for transactions does absolve them of moral evaluation (unless they are illegal or punishable by law like child prostitution or human trafficking)."
You've included two "exceptions" here. I hope you've realized that there's a contradiction here. If people's willingness does absolve them of moral evaluation, then there shouldn't really be any exceptions. The fact that we have labor laws against child labor, minimum wage, human trafficking, prostitution shows: No, just because people willingly participate in a transaction doesn't ipso facto make them morally right (or fair.)
Thanks, once again, for your time and effort in responding. :)