[pasabagi]

I think the problem is 1. incentivises the exploiter to dehumanize the exploited. They are interested in the productive use of a person, not the person themselves. As such, exploitation has an inherently and strongly abusive tendency, whether or not that's actually manifested or not.

[squidlogic]

The purchaser of a service shouldn’t be interested in every aspect of the person providing that service. There may be some human rights that need to be respected, but those are codified into law.

Also, I don’t think it follows that because someone does not care about all aspects of a person they are therefore dehumanizing them.

Who of us ever really cares about every single aspect of another person? Even your spouse or close family member will have parts of them that you don’t care to engage with. In fact they may choose to keep those aspects private from you, meaning you cannot care about them.

In an employer employee relationship I expect it is similar. The employer shouldn’t be allowed to delve into the parts of the employees life that are unrelated to the “trade” of service for wage. This type of snooping would be expected and maybe required if the employer was supposed to care about the person themselves.

Fundamentally this is about the right of the individual to alienate their labor. I can sell my labor to others, but nothing else. To sell your whole person is slavery. It seems wage earning is an innovation not an exploitation.

[pasabagi]

> Who of us ever really cares about every single aspect of another person? Even your spouse or close family member will have parts of them that you don’t care to engage with. In fact they may choose to keep those aspects private from you, meaning you cannot care about them.

I guess I take the inverse conclusion. I think if you don't engage with people holistically, you're ultimately just using them for your own entertainment.

As for the employer-employee thing, I think it's helpful to come at this from the facts - we know that employee abuse, including very extreme forms, is both pernicious (it persists even when illegal) and ubiquitous, in the present, and in history. This suggests that there should be some structural reason.

[Robotbeat]

The problem is we have one word that has gradually assumed an almost universally negative connotation. We should just stop using it for definition number 1 at this point.

So much of this stuff is just semantics.