The ethics of AI-generated design are not absolute but depend heavily on context, intention, and consequence. Using AI to create a missing-dog poster or promotional flyers for a struggling local business is generally seen as acceptable, as it addresses a practical need or enables work that might not otherwise exist. These scenarios demonstrate AI filling gaps for individuals or small businesses lacking resources for professional design. However, when a profitable corporation automates its design department solely to increase profits, the ethical implications change significantly. This situation raises concerns about job displacement and the distribution of benefits. The core ethical issue is not whether AI replaces human labor, but rather the justification for such decisions and how their outcomes are distributed. We must consider the necessity of automation, available alternatives, and the impact on workers alongside potential benefits. The author argues that judging AI-generated design requires understanding the specific circumstances, unlike a simple ethical binary. Acknowledging the legitimate concerns of designers regarding their labor value is important, but this cannot dictate permanent demand against technological advancement. Ultimately, the ethical evaluation hinges on whether replacing human labor is justified by the circumstances, who benefits, and who bears the costs.