We are discussing with such topics the probability of human living chances in the jackpot of life; this is a legitimate scientific and ethical discourse to eventually decipher the design of that 'lottery' and to redesign the rules of the game, in terms of morality and performance. My answer to this quest is the earth sharing economy (Geonomics); genomics will do to economics, what astronomy did to astrology and chemistry to alchemy. After all, we are dealing with human-made systems, which can be improved by human will and thought, but only gradually ('perestroika') and not by any shock therapy (no katastroika, please).

In my humble opinion, exploitation by a human to another human or by people to other people is terribly wrong or "unethical". Exploitation comes within the context of the incessant struggle between power & ethics with the powerful trying to subjugate the weaker. Slavery & imperialism have manifested revolting exploitation throughout history.

I do believe that all humans have been created equal & "human" exploitation to "human" ought not have a place on this earth. We can benefit from each other on equal footing without the discriminatory division into superior & inferior.

I disagree with Marx's "generalized" view . Economics has two aspects: economical growth " which can be managed by science & technology alone if we wish" and wealth distribution "which has been subjected to many abhorrent exploitations all over the world".

By looking at the troubles & wars in the world arena, we can recognize the hands of "unethical" economics in shaping these problems. A powerful country seeks to place other weaker countries under its hegemony to take advantage of their natural resources so to arrive at this end, several games "political, invasions, wars, terrorism…etc" are played.

What the world needs badly is an "ethical power" which gives an example of how "ethical policies" are adopted & implemented in various fields including economics.

We are discussing with such topics the probability of human living chances in the jackpot of life; this is a legitimate scientific and ethical discourse to eventually decipher the design of that 'lottery' and to redesign the rules of the game, in terms of morality and performance. My answer to this quest is the earth sharing economy (Geonomics); genomics will do to economics, what astronomy did to astrology and chemistry to alchemy. After all, we are dealing with human-made systems, which can be improved by human will and thought, but only gradually ('perestroika') and not by any shock therapy (no katastroika, please).

Dear Stephen,

It is nice reply and I agree with your view. But, perhapse, you did not exactly catch the tone of my question. I want to point out the same thing that one can not separate ethics from economic process.

Economic process entails human beings. If we accept that human beings have a moral strand, then we cannot remove the morality of ethics from the analysis of economics.

Certainly Marx considered that the economy was free of ethical considerations. But that is not true, the relationship between individuals in the market supposes moral sentiments that are studied by Smith in his treatise (1752) but the theory of exploitation is, in fact, an expression of a whole belief that starts from the Ricaro's theory of rent (1811) and that is extended by all those who accept the labor theory of value. Even today, there are people who reject what the marginalists elaborated in the 70s of the 19th century .

The work does not determine the value of the goods, these are determined by the subjective valuations of the one who wants the good (demand side) and who puts it on the market (suply side) and the relationships in the production are contractual. They precede the sale of the good in the market, so that what the entrepreneur receives is a remnant that can be much when the prices obtained are greater than those estimated by the same, the analysis of the Ricardian rent does not take into account the time, and time is an inescapable factor in understanding the market process.

Exploitation typically involves taking unfair advantage of another, especially the work of another, and on its face exploitation seems both unethical and immoral. The best exposition of this is by Matt Zwolinski and the late Alen Werteimer; it seems to directly address Dave's question and it analyzes the ideas of Marx and uses modern economics-related examples. Their brief piece (cited below) is scholarly, cogent, and lucid; it adds significant insight along with illuminating the complexity involved in the issue.1

But we must not ignore Böhm Bawerk's Theory of Exploitation in his work History and Critique of Interest Theories (1884) and to revise the theory of labor value Karl Marx and the Close of His System (1896)

Those who say and believe that ethics has no linkage with economics should note that it is controversial if they.... on one side say so.... and at the same time recognize or treat "exploitation" as one of the most vital topic of political economics. Is it my illusion or it is a fact to be accepted by them?

The more scientific economics will get in the next 3 decades, it will be accepted ! Up to now: economics is a profession to manage private wealth by accumulating property (mainly privatizing nature) as banking collateral for credit and interest, since Sumer and Babylon. The whole thing is a matter of cognitive evolution, in terms of checking the land, money and taxation monopolies.

We believe that every person is made in the image of God. Human exploitation is the violations of that fundamental truth. 

I agree with Dr. Nizar Matar

I'm sorry, but Karl Marx did not deny the influence of the subjective factor on the functioning of the commodity economy. Furthermore. Marx recognized his presence and influence. In Capital, Marx deliberately abstracted from this influence in order to study the objective laws of the functioning of the commodity economy in their pure manifestation. Since ethics is the science of morality, the science of the moral principles of human behavior, it is logical to treat the subjective side of economic life. Because of this, the ethical segment of the economy remained outside the Marxist analysis.