Eliot Glassheim Essay Scholarship

Essay Question: Is the gig economy immoral?

Uber, DoorDash, Airbnb: when these companies first started, they were touted as a new era of free and flexible employment. Employees could work on their own time, in the comfort of their own cars, earn as much and as little as they wanted, and be their own bosses. In return, consumers wouldn’t be subject to exorbitant taxi companies, could get anything they wanted delivered, and were able to travel with amenities far cheaper than ever before. These new “gig” jobs were declared a win-win for everyone.

But things got dark quickly. The money employees earn isn’t enough to live on, there are few safety regulations protecting either workers or customers, and prices increase regularly. Workers can be fired for no reason, rarely receive benefits, and can pull out of a deal without warning, leaving customers out in the cold. There are no unions and few advocates; every colleague is a competitor, and the line between private life and work life grows thinner.

It is therefore time to ask whether the gig economy is immoral? Is it time to move on?

The question of this essay asks you to balance the positives of flexible work against the harms of economic fragility. This is not an easy task. Yes, gig economies hurt workers, but so does unemployment. Yes, the system is rigged against employees, but it has changed the way we all live, possibly for the better. The question we would like you to ask is not whether the gig economy is functioning – whether it works – but whether it is good or bad. This involves looking at the controversy through a moral lens more than an economic one.

HOW TO WRITE IT:
The point of this essay is to examine the controversy and connect to its key philosophical ideas. You may take any position you want, including finding some middle ground, but you must explain the opposing positions in the debate. Compare claims and evidence for each side—persuasively argue against yourself while you defend your conclusion. Do not rely on straw man arguments; make the best case for each position and then come to a defensible conclusion.

The essay must conclude with a clear and definitive position. It should strive to be fair, not polemical, and can connect examples from popular culture, literature, science, or any other arena that helps clarify the controversy. It may also use evidence from political science, anthropology, psychology, history, economics, sociology, or other disciplines that ask about the human social experience. However, it is first and foremost a philosophy essay and the argument must be philosophical in character. Examples from other disciplines should complement, not eclipse the philosophical argumentation.

The essay should be written for a general audience, not for a class or a teacher. Do not think of it as a research paper, but more like a magazine article or long-form blog post. It should be clear, thoughtful, and accessible to an average college student, not super-technical or confusingly abstract. The essay should not have extensive quotes or excessive footnotes, although it should have some quotes, at least. Classroom assignments will not be accepted without significant revision. Prospective authors are encouraged to look at previous years’ essays online to see some winning examples. Visit: https://philosophyinpubliclife.org/eliot-glassheim-essay-contest/ for more details and past winners’ papers.

Finally, essays will not be evaluated on what position they argue for, but on how well they argue. All conclusions have equal opportunity to win. IPPL is non-partisan and non-ideological.

WHERE TO START:

We encourage you to find secondary sources from newspapers, magazines, and reputable websites, to bolster your position. But again, all roads must lead to philosophy. Since this is a philosophical essay, it should examine the key ideas and terms found in and around the question. Explicit connections to specific philosophers and schools of thought are welcome, although these ideas and references must be presented without using jargon or overly academic prose.

Some examples of related philosophical questions you can address are: How do you define the gig economy? Is it actually new or just an evolution of “freelance” work? How do we balance workers’ rights with flexibility? Should people be allowed opt-out of a minimum wage if they need to? How many of the scary stories are over-hyped, and is the gig economy really more dangerous and exploitative than other forms of work? Aren’t all employees working under the duress of economic necessity?

Furthermore, is it worth asking which moral standards apply here? Are we supposed to judge the morality of the gig economy by its consequences, by the intentions of those involved, or by its promise to contribute to a good life? And does it make sense to even ask whether a particular market is moral or not: isn’t a market just a neutral tool as good or bad as those who participate? How do ethics and economics interact?

Eligibility

Prize money will be dispersed through UND in the form of a scholarship. As such, entrants will have to be enrolled as a UND student next year, 2024-2025. Part-time students, international students, and graduate students are all eligible, including those at the law and medical school. Only one’s own work can be submitted, and group essays are not eligible. Essays must be original, never published, and be between 1500 and 2000 words.

For more information and to read past winners’ essays, visit: https://philosophyinpubliclife.org and look under the “Projects” menu, or contact us at ippl@UND.edu

Award
$1,000.00
Scopes
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
Deadline
03/01/2024
Supplemental Questions
  1. In essay format of between 1,500 and 2,000 words, please answer the following question: Is the gig economy immoral?
    • Please refer to the Description for more information about this topic.