If your argument comes down to you arguing semantics, you've missed the point.
There are various reasons for Amazon to pay the wages they do and keep the conditions they do, there are also reasons for the workers to want better wages/conditions.
There isn't one universal morality you can judge the situation with, and you shouldn't try to. In the end it's a financial transaction between the employees and their employer. It makes great economic sense for the employer to try to maximize it's income, and it has the side effect of worsening the lives of the employees, who, in good sense, come to the conclusion they need more than they currently have, and proceed to negotiate with Amazon. Amazon doesn't want to pay them more because it would cut into their income, so they try to dismiss it. The workers proceed to strike to force Amazon into a bad position. I would say neither are at fault.
There is no morality to be shone upon the situation, different parties have different interests to protect.
> If your argument comes down to you arguing semantics, you've missed the point.
My argument doesn't come down to semantics. @lsaferite brought up definitions and so I responded to that.
Weird how you use words like "force" when talking about the workers' actions, but not Amazon's. Funny how it's "great economic sense" for Amazon to maximize their income, but not for the workers to maximize theirs.
Also:
> There isn't one universal morality you can judge the situation with
I have no idea what the fuck you could mean by this. Also pretty sure you're making moral judgments anyway after lecturing us all against it. There's a word for that.
Your definition of exploit differed from his and you tried to disprove his...
The workers are forcing Amazon to change the contract, it has negative connotations but that is what's happening
> have no idea what the fuck you could mean by this. Also pretty sure you're making moral judgments anyway after lecturing us all against it. There's a word for that.
There is no one "right" party in the situation, and trying to determine one is foolish. And I suppose it could be called a moral judgement, in regards to discourse regarding morals, but that isn't the "situation".
You can't "disprove" a definition for a word. "Exploit" can mean simply "make productive use of", or it can have sinister connotations. Since I was the one to first use it (in this thread at least), I was merely pointing out that my usage was valid. @lsaferite made the semantic point and I responded to it, but your implication that the word's definition is the crux of my argument is inane.
> trying to determine one is foolish
You can go ahead and keep saying this over and over and over (and, if you wish, over), but that doesn't make it true. You think you're above the responsibility of moral judgment, but what you're actually doing is placing your moral judgment somewhere in between the two parties. This is still a moral judgment. Just because your determination is that both parties are somewhat aggrieved doesn't mean you're being fair or above it all. You think your judgment is special and enlightened because it's centrist? It's not. You're just a schmuck with an opinion like the rest of us.
There are various reasons for Amazon to pay the wages they do and keep the conditions they do, there are also reasons for the workers to want better wages/conditions.
There isn't one universal morality you can judge the situation with, and you shouldn't try to. In the end it's a financial transaction between the employees and their employer. It makes great economic sense for the employer to try to maximize it's income, and it has the side effect of worsening the lives of the employees, who, in good sense, come to the conclusion they need more than they currently have, and proceed to negotiate with Amazon. Amazon doesn't want to pay them more because it would cut into their income, so they try to dismiss it. The workers proceed to strike to force Amazon into a bad position. I would say neither are at fault.
There is no morality to be shone upon the situation, different parties have different interests to protect.