If that's the case then there can also be no ethical employment, either, both for employer and for employee. So that would seem to average out to neutrality.
This is precisely the sort of situation where taking the average is an awful way to ignore injustice - the poor get much poorer and the rich get much richer but everything is ‘neutral’ on average.
“There is no ethical X under capitalism” is not license to stick our heads in the sand and continue to consume without a second thought for those who are being exploited. It’s a reminder that things need to change, not only in all the little tiny drop-in-a-bucket ways that individuals can afford to contribute.
Exactly. It means that we must continue to act ethically within the system that is the way it is now, which we must accept, while at the same time doing our best to change that system for the better. It's a "why not both" situation.
>This is precisely the sort of situation where taking the average is an awful way to ignore injustice - the poor get much poorer and the rich get much richer but everything is ‘neutral’ on average.
That has nothing to do with the ethics of capitalism, though. The poor becoming poorer and the rich becoming richer is not a foregone conclusion of a capitalist society, nor is it guaranteed not to happen in a non-capitalist society.
