In recent years, Korean society has been embroiled in controversy over so-called “Midnight delivery,” a service described by companies as an innovation. Labor unions argue that delivery workers engaged in overnight shifts have died from overwork continuously since 2021, prompting political debates over whether dawn delivery should be legally restricted. Almost immediately, media and social networks erupted into fierce polarization.
One side asks, “Why block an innovation that has already become part of everyday life?”
The other responds, “Convenience built on someone’s death can never be justified.”
Then comes the counterargument: “Why politicize innovation at all?”
As these ideological clashes collide, something crucial is being overlooked: our lives — the lives of all members of this society.
Is Midnight delivery truly making our lives better? Or is it merely covering up structural social problems by relying on someone else’s overnight labor? This question deserves serious attention. To begin, let us examine the arguments opposing legal restrictions and ask whether, anywhere within them, we can still find the human being.
The Case for Midnight Delivery
Midnight delivery is essential to my life
Midnight delivery refers to services that deliver items ordered late at night before 7 a.m. the next morning. In a country like Korea where workers endure some of the longest working and commuting hours among OECD nations, the ability to purchase necessities late at night is undeniably convenient. What once caused frustration and helplessness can now be resolved with a few taps on a smartphone.
From diapers and infant formula to fresh groceries, dawn delivery meets diverse needs and has grown explosively, particularly supported by dual-income households, single-person households, and families with young children.
Because of this broad consumer support, calls by labor unions to legally ban Midnight delivery have encountered far more resistance than similar claims regarding fatalities at construction sites or factories.
Some critics mock supporters by saying that people lived perfectly fine before Midnight delivery existed. But reducing support for Midnight delivery to “laziness” or “poor planning” is deeply unfair. Beneath this debate lies dissatisfaction with deeper structural problems in our society.
Rather than focusing on individual preferences, we must turn our attention to those structures.
Korean workers face exceptionally long working hours and commutes. It is no coincidence that the phrase “a life with evenings” once became one of the most powerful political campaign slogans. If people truly had time after work, and if care and domestic labor were not disproportionately imposed on individuals, the demand for dawn delivery might not feel so desperate.
Working mothers — in a country where women shoulder one of the world’s highest shares of household labor — single parents, and the rapidly increasing number of single-person households face hardships that cannot be explained by individual shortcomings alone. These difficulties are the result of a social system designed to concentrate labor and care burdens on individuals.
Even if Midnight delivery temporarily compensates for these shortcomings, does that justify its continuation?
When life is already exhausting, anyone would want to hold onto a service that offers even slight relief. But we must ask once more:
Is it justifiable to solve my hardship by demanding someone else’s sacrifice?
Solving a problem requires addressing its root causes. Covering up structural failures by creating new risks only postpones the reckoning. Without fundamental solutions, dawn delivery merely replaces one visible problem with another that has yet to fully surface.
Economic Growth and Employment
Some argue that restricting Midnight delivery would harm the distribution industry and threaten the survival of small businesses and farmers. Short-term disruption is possible. But from a broader market perspective, demand does not disappear simply because one distribution channel changes.
Employment arguments follow a similar logic. Surveys conducted by delivery worker organizations indicate strong opposition among workers themselves to restricting Midnight delivery, citing higher pay, less traffic, and greater daytime flexibility.
Respecting workers’ choices is important. But choices are not always made under conditions of full freedom or complete understanding..
Consider why society does not legalize drug use, even if individuals desire it. The reason lies not in moral judgment alone, but in the long-term social costs borne by the entire community. Smoking regulations exist for similar reasons.
The risks associated with prolonged overnight labor deserve the same consideration. Health problems may not be immediately visible, but over time they are likely to increase, shifting the cost onto society as a whole. Even when all parties benefit in the short term, long-term consequences must be weighed collectively.
Invisible Harm, Invisible People
Midnight delivery affects more than just consumers. Noise, air pollution, and changes to residential environments impact people regardless of whether they use the service. These harms may seem minor, but they demonstrate that dawn delivery is not entirely harmless.
More importantly, these overlooked issues reveal a deeper problem: public debate focuses on abstract positions rather than on the individual citizens directly affected.
In any social issue, the most important question should always be human life.
Conclusion: What Should Be Our Standard?
Both supporters and opponents of Midnight delivery ultimately seek a more humane life. The real question, then, is not whether the service should exist, but why others need or reject it — and what long-term impact it will have on their lives.
Delivery workers, like the voices heard in call center messages, are “someone’s child and someone’s parent.” If that worker collapsing alone on a winter dawn were your family member, this issue would no longer feel like a matter of convenience.
Philosopher Martha Nussbaum writes in The Monarchy of Fear:
“We become trapped in fear and disgust, seeing only ‘our side’ as human, while the other becomes an abstract number or obstacle.”
In controversies like Midnight delivery, both sides can appear correct from their own perspectives. But we must abandon the arrogance of believing our group’s logic is superior. We must begin with concern for human lives and reflect on the simple truth we too often avoid: our convenience may depend on someone else’s sacrifice.