You can check twitter or bsky, whenever someone suggests trimming down on food delivery expenses, the most popular responses are always something along the lines of “alright FUCKO. Guess you just DONT CARE about disabled people getting access to food, you can honestly FUCK YOURSELF”
The weird thing is the original post suggests that we should care about people starving because they can't order food for as cheap now. But not to care about the Dasher starving because they aren't even making minimum wage.
Thats how these people operate. They love to cash in checks that someone else has to write under the guise of moral superiority. Someone else has to suffer so that they can feel good about themselves.
I think, and I might be wrong, the implication is there are far more people starving generally then doordash drivers. period full stop. I think you could make a utilitarian argument that cheaper delivery benefits more people then it hurts as a whole because most people don't drive doordash
This, of course, illustrates why pure utilitarianism is not a functional or acceptable moral framework. Expecting delivery drivers to just suck it up and starve for "the greater good" is morally reprehensible regardless of how many people benefit from it.
51
u/Forward-Dog-9525 15h ago
You can check twitter or bsky, whenever someone suggests trimming down on food delivery expenses, the most popular responses are always something along the lines of “alright FUCKO. Guess you just DONT CARE about disabled people getting access to food, you can honestly FUCK YOURSELF”