The article I chose alluded the implications of Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) and other similar platforms. AMT's goal is to "break jobs into smaller tasks and offer them to people across the globe" (Inside Amazon's clickworker platform, Reese and Heath). Conversely, Hope Reese and Nick Heath attempt to challenge the intent behind AMT. In the title of their article, Reese and Heath ask the following question: Does AMT and its' peers " democratize work or exploit the disempowered?" The article delves into the lives of AMT workers, several of which are: diverse, protracted working hours, low pay, difficulty in being paid, moral hazards, unclear job requirements, and the limited availability of these jobs. I found this source at techrepublic.com.
…show more content…
For one, every inconvenience to the worker lessens their ability to achieve εὐδαιμονία (eudaimonia), and therefore, both makes the lives of the workers unfulfilling. This not only encourages stagnating potential-something I believe Aristotle abhors. Furthermore, this constant state of manic frenzy to just earn a living prevents the moral development of individuals. In essence, this lack of definitive pay, job cancellations, and more makes it harder for ends to meet, making the Turkers sacrifice nutrients and sleep, preventing them from being rested enough to even think about one's moral development. Turkers must also sacrifice the time that one should use to gather the knowledge they need to know what is morally virtuous to them, demonstrating that the Turkers are suppressed mentally as well. And this is just on an individual basis, and specifically discussing only the first tier of Potentiality lost to the Actuality of working for longer periods of time. As a result of this focus on productivity, Turkers change, becoming akin to drones- "cogs in the machine", if you will. Ones that will never improve, with less of an incentive to even attempt to become better. Eventually, this cascades to the point where most of the workers who live off of AMT might never spend any of their Potentiality on themselves. Unlike what Lear imagines a successful Aristotelian ideal, these Turkers cannot flourish at this time, and may never flourish under AMT, and the proof is that they are not "truly happy", and by no means engender a sense of admiration. Consequently, I feel respectful pity, however pity
For one, every inconvenience to the worker lessens their ability to achieve εὐδαιμονία (eudaimonia), and therefore, both makes the lives of the workers unfulfilling. This not only encourages stagnating potential-something I believe Aristotle abhors. Furthermore, this constant state of manic frenzy to just earn a living prevents the moral development of individuals. In essence, this lack of definitive pay, job cancellations, and more makes it harder for ends to meet, making the Turkers sacrifice nutrients and sleep, preventing them from being rested enough to even think about one's moral development. Turkers must also sacrifice the time that one should use to gather the knowledge they need to know what is morally virtuous to them, demonstrating that the Turkers are suppressed mentally as well. And this is just on an individual basis, and specifically discussing only the first tier of Potentiality lost to the Actuality of working for longer periods of time. As a result of this focus on productivity, Turkers change, becoming akin to drones- "cogs in the machine", if you will. Ones that will never improve, with less of an incentive to even attempt to become better. Eventually, this cascades to the point where most of the workers who live off of AMT might never spend any of their Potentiality on themselves. Unlike what Lear imagines a successful Aristotelian ideal, these Turkers cannot flourish at this time, and may never flourish under AMT, and the proof is that they are not "truly happy", and by no means engender a sense of admiration. Consequently, I feel respectful pity, however pity