Sweatshops are ethical

First, I would like you to look at my opponent's final argument. She says that people can survive without sweatshops in many countries, so we can see here that every time she has said that sweatshops are the only means of survival, she was exaggerating. (a) Sweatshops Don't Cause Harm I think this is best solved with another analogy, which I hope my opponent will not ignore this time. Say there is a terrible disease rampant in third world countries. There is a cure, but it involves the loss of both legs. Somebody manages to produce a cure that, instead of losing both legs, makes them lose both toes. While it is still unfortunate that they end of losing both of their toes, it is much better than losing both legs. However, losing both toes is clearly harmful. Does this mean that it is unethical to give them this better cure? Not at all. Providing better alternatives is clearly ethical. (b) Sweatshops = Better Jobs Here my opponent presents us with several completely unbiased definitions of sweatshops. Or not. The first one is actually credible, yet mentions nothing about abuse or conditions as it all has to do with payment. It could be in an area with air-conditioning and still fit this description. The second one is clearly one fighting for what it believes to be workers rights, as it says "We advocate a living wage" and all sorts of other biased stuff. It can't be considered impartial. Just read what it says. The third is filled with individual links to places against sweatshops, such as Feminists Against Sweatshops, National Mobilization Against Sweatshops, and No Sweat: Union-Made Sweatshop-Free Casual Apparel. Very impartial, right? Let's go to a better definition: the DICTIONARY: a shop employing workers at low wages, for long hours, and under poor conditions. [1] All these words (low, long, and poor) are relative to western standards, so poor conditions means worse than western factories, which alone isn't all that bad considering what it could be. My opponent then asks why these people should be "forced" to work in these conditions. The answer is that life is not fair, but it doesn't help to prevent them from taking the best options that they can get. Unless my opponent has some kind of magical plan to improve their lives, there is no reason to oppose the sweatshops. My opponent contradicts herself, again, by calling them "the worst possible conditions simply because they view most all and any atrocities as better than death." What about the way the existed without sweatshops? They could go back to that. But they don't want to. The life without sweatshops is the "worst." My opponent doesn't seem to be contradicting herself repeatedly. You say that an increase in wage wouldn't help, yet their wages are too low? How does that follow? Additionally, many companies do provide housing and food, which isn't even factored into the wage. They could provide less than they do, but they usually provide about twice as much as domestic labor would provide. My opponent apparently never looked at my first source in the first round, which went into detail about how much better sweatshops paid compared to domestic labor. My second source in the second round was miscopied, so I will post it here: [2]. It states that the workers in these sweatshops are able to now afford cars and put their children through education instead of early work. They also work in better conditions than others. Isn't this a great thing? When a Senator decided that he disliked foreign child labor, he got a boycott passed. What was the effect? Did these kids go to school? Not a chance. They worked in worse jobs, like "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution." [3] These jobs are filled with abuse. Why would they not be abused in these domestic jobs? As I've pointed out, sweatshops don't require abuse to be sweatshops, based on my opponent's only credible definition and my own. The typical domestic job is subsistence farming, trash picking, or prostitution. About the movement of a factory: For one thing, I've found no sources of this, as any search for "move" or "relocate" mentions only the initial outsourcing. For another, this means that world-wide, GDP will go up at a steady rate as the poorer will get the jobs. Otherwise, you have some who keep the sweatshops with higher wages, and others who get no sweatshops. They want sweatshops. I'll use another analogy. There is an ice cream man who goes by once. He won't be there forever. You want ice cream. Should you force him to stay, or not buy from him because he's not going to be there forever? If you demand that you get the ice cream for a cheaper price, he'll just move on. And that is his right. Next my opponent uses the basic laws of economics to refute... most expert economists who have talked of the matter. Wait, what? When these workers work in sweatshops, they produce more and earn higher wages. They are then able to save money and purchase more on a global market. This is how some people end up saving enough to buy cars. Now, the others who don't work in sweatshops who would sell goods to these people now working in sweatshops may raise their prices, but not enough to counteract their increase in wage. Now the people who don't work in sweatshops, who are less productive, have less purchasing power than those who do work in sweatshops. This inspires them to be more productive and earn more money. Otherwise, there would be no point to ever getting more money. Not all people get employed by sweatshops. Hey, let's compare something to murder, and it is clearly not ethical! I can't believe that my opponent is actually using this argument. The clear difference between the two is that sweatshops require consent, while murder does not. If one was willing to be murdered, it would no longer truly be murder, so there is a clear distinction. Again, my opponent has agreed that sweatshops are not necessary for survival. They are a better option. While they can't demand even higher wages, they are already, by working in a sweatshop, receiving higher wages than they would elsewhere. This allows for them to save money, such that some of them even manage to buy cars [2]. How does this constitute as poor, especially compared to those who do not work at sweatshops? Sweatshops clearly make them better off compared to those still in subsistence agriculture, prostitution, and trash picking for half the wage. Ethically, as I pointed out in my analogy earlier this round, sweatshops are good. They provide better results for those consenting. (c) Voluntary Work / Consequentialism I don't actually see any reason why "consequentialism is unsufficient [sic] as an ethical standard." My opponent seems to believe that for it to be ethical, it must have some kind of spirited motive. That doesn't matter. What matters is that everybody is overall benefited. How that this not be ethical? The sweatshops don't put these people in these conditions. That would be confusing cause and effect. Their conditions cause their best option to be sweatshops. My opponent must explain how it can possibly NOT be ethical for people to make a consensual exchange in which both are benefitted above what they otherwise would have been. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.johannorberg.net... [3] http://www.unicef.org... p.15