The argument is usually there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. As in every part of the system is exploitative. The computer he used to program exploited workers and natural resources. The clothing he wore made in sweatshops. All the food made by exploiting animals, etc.
Therefore those with the most money must’ve cumulatively exploited more than others regardless of how they made the money because the exploitation is unavoidable.
Sure, but that argument is specious as hell, right?
Like, if everyone in the United States decided to give you a $5 bill, does that instantly make you a bad person who exploited labor to get where you are?
"There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is simply a rhetorical device to outline the flaws in the system. It completely breaks down when used as justification to villainize someone.
Your position could be equally stated as, "anyone who has more money than me is a worse person than me, and anyone with less money than me is a better person than me." It's a misuse of the "no ethical consumption" idea on its face.
I think the argument makes more sense when applied to villainize billionaires. Like there’s makes more money and then there’s makes many orders of magnitude more money. You’re much closer to a millionaire than a billionaire.
Then “anyone with money then me” becomes “anyone with 10,000x more money than me” and you can see where the arguments starts to make sense again. Did this person work 10,000x more than me? Obviously that’s impossible and therefore someone must’ve been exploited.
The issue is that becoming a billionaire has more to do with being lucky than it does with direct exploitation.
If everyone in the US chipped 5 dollars into a pool, and it was randomly given to one person, that person would be a billionaire.
And yes, they have a huge concentration of other people's labor represented in that cash. But the person who won the pool isn't a bad person because of that. They didn't exploit anyone themselves. Just because someone somewhere at some point under capitalism was exploited, that doesn't lay the moral condemnation at the feet of the lottery winner.
The argument is usually there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. As in every part of the system is exploitative. The computer he used to program exploited workers and natural resources. The clothing he wore made in sweatshops. All the food made by exploiting animals, etc.
Therefore those with the most money must’ve cumulatively exploited more than others regardless of how they made the money because the exploitation is unavoidable.
Sure, but that argument is specious as hell, right? Like, if everyone in the United States decided to give you a $5 bill, does that instantly make you a bad person who exploited labor to get where you are?
"There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is simply a rhetorical device to outline the flaws in the system. It completely breaks down when used as justification to villainize someone.
Your position could be equally stated as, "anyone who has more money than me is a worse person than me, and anyone with less money than me is a better person than me." It's a misuse of the "no ethical consumption" idea on its face.
I think the argument makes more sense when applied to villainize billionaires. Like there’s makes more money and then there’s makes many orders of magnitude more money. You’re much closer to a millionaire than a billionaire.
Then “anyone with money then me” becomes “anyone with 10,000x more money than me” and you can see where the arguments starts to make sense again. Did this person work 10,000x more than me? Obviously that’s impossible and therefore someone must’ve been exploited.
The issue is that becoming a billionaire has more to do with being lucky than it does with direct exploitation.
If everyone in the US chipped 5 dollars into a pool, and it was randomly given to one person, that person would be a billionaire.
And yes, they have a huge concentration of other people's labor represented in that cash. But the person who won the pool isn't a bad person because of that. They didn't exploit anyone themselves. Just because someone somewhere at some point under capitalism was exploited, that doesn't lay the moral condemnation at the feet of the lottery winner.