In randomized controlled trials (RTCs), one group receives an intervention, while another does not. In a social science research RTC, for over twelve years, non-profit GiveDirectly issued direct cash transfers of $22 per month to randomly selected adults in a Kenyan village to test direct cash transfers' effectiveness in poverty alleviation. Some suggest RTCs like GiveDirectly's are exploitative, rendering human beings as experimental subjects. Others suggest benefitting only a portion of the population might provoke tension within the community. Are random selection effects inherently unfair?

Arists Sophie Calle and Vito Acconci and the galleries, collectors, and museums buying their work profit from photographs of people in public spaces. However, the subjects neither have knowledge of their being photographed nor received compensation for the sales. Relatedly, subjects in commercials are used to sell products, whereas background individuals in for-profit news channels are not; in the former, lack of compensation would be considered theft, but the strategy in the latter is typically accepted. Art is often considered distinct from the aforementioned media. Is it ethical for artists and art institutions to profit from work depicting uncompensated subjects?

Children on monetized YouTube channels have no legal protections to guarantee they will profit from participating in videos, yet youth working in the entertainment industry are protected by stringent labor laws. Money incentivizes family vloggers to shape "life" according to profitability, and children's understanding of authentic emotion and non-work activities may be fundamentally disrupted. On the other hand, such profits may be used to fund the children's education or help caretakers share positive messages to a large online audience. What qualifies an activity as labor, and what rights can children featued on monetized channels claim against their parents?

Fast fashion, the practice of large companies producing trendy, low cost items, has become more controversial with the more clothing waste that it produces. Many major fast fashion brands, such as H&M and Gap, produce items at high rates to keep costs low, but at the expense of quality and major environmental impact. These brands do however provide nicer clothing to those who may not be able to afford sustainable and designer brands.

Since 2014, Korean pop music, or K-Pop, has become increasingly popular all over the world. Many see this rise in popularity as a good thing, as it allows for the rest of the world to experience and connect with new cultures. However, many K-Pop artists are forced into grueling contracts, and experience everything from long hours and high demands to forced plastic surgery and sexual exploitation. Many still see K-Pop as a net good since performers willingly sign their contracts and because a high work ethic is valued in South Korea.

Maria wonders whether it is morally acceptable to buy cheap products manufactured by people working for low wages in bad conditions. Are we morally obligated to ensure that none of our actions indirectly harm others?

Medical advancements have made head transplantation surgery seem possible. The body of a brain-dead patient could be attached to the head of those with advanced cancer. Some worry that vulnerable young people could be farmed for their bodies. Is this surgery morally permissible?

Given that college athletes provide universities with windfall profits but are not compensated except through scholarships, is the current structure of NCAA sports exploitative? Should college athletes be paid?

Given the discrepancy between lack of income for college athletes and the revenue generated for their universities, should college athletes be paid?