Exploitation Continues to Evolve: The "Human Cost" Questioned in the Digital Age

When Did "Efficiency" Become a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card"?

Automation by AI, the expansion of gig work, and the shifting of climate change costs—today's economic news is filled with praise for "adapting to change." But under this "adaptation," who is being exhausted, and who is being discarded? The essay introduced by Phys.org tackles these issues head-on, not just as economic or technological problems, but as a moral issue. The questions are simple: "Who bears the responsibility for human costs?" and "How do we change corporate culture so that it doesn't just dismiss these costs as 'inevitable'?"

The author refers to this "normalization of ruthlessness" as **"moral menace"**, a term used by Yale law scholar James Whitman. It's not so much about greed but about the pattern of rephrasing and justifying exploitation and harm as "the price of progress" or "for the sake of efficiency," and reproducing it.

The Root of "Moral Menace": When Ownership Turns Humans into Objects

The sharpness of the essay lies in its avoidance of a simplistic good-versus-evil narrative that blames "ruthless managers" for societal decay. Instead, it traces the history of how ruthlessness has been justified as a "system."

One starting point mentioned is the property law concept of ancient Rome, where wives, children, slaves, and even animals were treated as "property," subject to the owner's will, including violence. The crucial point here is the fact that ruthlessness can be designed as an order, not as an "exceptional evil."

Moving further in history, in the 15th century, religious authorities justified conquests (land seizure, enslavement, labor exploitation), and in the 17th century, during the expansion of trade and empires, exploitation was translated into "efficiency." In the colonial and slave economies, accounting, logistics, and labor control were refined, and humans were reduced to components for profit maximization. Thus, inhumanity accumulated as "management technology".

And now, in the modern era. We use words like "productivity," "optimization," "KPI," and "cost reduction" as almost odorless "rationality." But when we trace where this rationality comes from, we find that the idea of cutting people to squeeze out results has, over a long period, solidified as "the correctness of management."

The Modern "Threat" Doesn't Have the Face of a Flashy Villain

The tricky part about "moral menace" is that it doesn't always appear as a blatantly malicious tyrant. More often, it appears as bullet points in a meeting document.

• Run with minimal staff

• Move deadlines forward

• Maintain customer experience

• Cut costs

• But don't increase turnover rates

When such unreasonable demands are tossed around as if they are natural, the workplace gradually takes on an atmosphere of "treating people as means." The essay points out that this kind of ruthlessness has solidified as "legitimacy of management" and even gained cultural backing. For example, narratives that glorify the dominance of the strong appear in popular works, and exploitative behavior is consumed as "strength."

Ironically, this doesn't necessarily lead to "good performance." The essay mentions that a dominant and indifferent style is unlikely to produce desirable results, and it also touches on low employee engagement (citing a figure of 31% as an example). In other words, management that cuts people makes both people and organizations leaner.

"Moral Muse" as a Counterbalance: Profit and Care Can Coexist

So, how can we weaken the "threat"? The essay introduces the counter-concept of leaders who bring care and fairness into organizations, calling them **"moral muse."** The point is not a moralistic call to "be a kind boss," but to delve into restructuring systems, governance, and evaluation.

Historical examples include the discourses of the Reformation criticizing commercial ethics and the discussions of founding-era politicians warning against the dominance of the wealthy. In modern corporate examples, initiatives institutionalizing employee-centric values are mentioned, showing the possibility that "making care an organizational principle does not sacrifice profit."

The author's argument is also a realism that acknowledges that single welfare measures, slogans, or ESG goals alone cannot eliminate historically accumulated ruthlessness. What is needed is for "moral muse" to increase to a critical mass, rewriting the very definitions of efficiency, value, and success. In other words, it's a battle to reset "what to optimize."

Social Media Reactions (Posts and Trends Observed Within Public Access)

*Due to viewing restrictions on platforms like X and Facebook, we will organize here by **(1) the content of posts where the text can be read on public pages and (2) typical issues that arise on similar themes**.

1) "Return to Moral Questions" Group: The Missing Piece in Tech and Climate Discussions

On LinkedIn, shares emphasize the perspective of "taking responsibility for human costs," quoting the problem statement at the beginning of this article (digital transformation and climate crisis are also moral issues).

This group argues against the current trend where AI and DX discussions tend to focus only on "productivity" and "competitiveness," advocating for returning ethics to a "design condition" rather than an "after-the-fact check.".

2) "Capitalism is Necessary, Therefore Save It" Group: Realism About the Direction of Reform

Another LinkedIn post acknowledges the problems of capitalism but argues that "anything other than capitalism is unrealistic" and "therefore, excesses should be curbed." An example is given of the issue of institutional investors buying up housing and driving up prices, arguing that the "excesses" of capitalism should be corrected.

This group reads "moral menace" not as a denial of capitalism itself but as a diagnosis to stop its runaway.

3) "Isn't That Just Idealism?" Group: ESG Fatigue and Distrust of Moral Narratives

Regarding the "moral muse" image presented in the text, there are often reactions on social media like "Isn't this just PR?" or "If there's no intention to change the system, it's just a nice story." Although we can't provide a large number of actual comments due to viewing restrictions, the essay itself anticipates this backlash by stating that "single ESG or pledges cannot uproot the problem."

4) "Give Us Concrete Measures" Group: Apply to Evaluation Systems, Procurement, and Supply Chains

Ultimately, the discussion turns to "So what do we change?" Here, the realistic approach involves tightening the "screws of the system," such as:

• Not evaluating managers based solely on short-term profits (including indicators like turnover, safety, health, and development)

• Visualizing the "invisible costs" of outsourcing, subcontracting, and gig work

• Ensuring climate action is not cost-shifted onto the vulnerable (just transition)
  . The essay also states that a critical mass is needed to change culture, showing the limits of individual measures while calling for "redefining design."
  
  
  

Conclusion: What Kind of Efficiency Do We Choose?

The term "moral menace" resonates because ruthlessness is not the exclusive domain of villains; it proliferates through "systems" and "rephrasing." "Efficiency," "optimization," "reform"—pleasant-sounding words become curtains that hide someone's pain.

Conversely, there is hope in this. If definitions are human-made, they can be remade. The "moral muse" that balances profit and care can be increased not as a miracle, but as an accumulation of institutional design. In the age of technology and climate, what is needed more than new tools is perhaps the ability to see through deeply rooted old ruthlessness.