Sweatshops are ethical

Thanks, Pro, for the round. (a) Re: Sweatshops Don't Cause Harm Pro's argument here is not that sweatshops aren't harmful, but that the harm they cause is better than death. You'll notice that nowhere did I disagree with that assessment. However, his whole point in R1 was that sweatshops aren't harmful which is untrue. In R1 I explained specifically how sweatshops are harmful in emotional, physical and mental ways. Pro never disputed this reality meaning he must accept that while working in sweatshops may be preferable to death, they are STILL unnecessarily harmful. Pro's mistake here is obvious: he notes death as being considered the "ultimate harm" by a worker, but in noting that death might be the ultimate harm, that in no way omits the reality that sweatshops are still harmful. Because this is an ethical debate, it will be Pro's burden to explain why humans should be exposed to unnecessary and gravely dangerous harms solely for the purpose of profit (on a personal note, I wonder how he reconciles this view with Christianity...). (b) Re: Sweatshops = Better Jobs There are several problems in this section but I'll begin with my opponent's skewed view of what a sweatshop is. He writes, "My opponent offers a terrible definition of a sweatshop, as a place that aims to keep people poor. If it wanted to do that, it wouldn't offer them more money than they already have." Because my opponent seems to disagree with my proposed definition, I'll offer the definition from various credible sources and encourage my opponent to find a better one (as I'd be willing to debate it). Here are some definitions: 1. According to the US Department of Labor, a sweatshop is any factory that violates more than one of the fundamental US labor laws, which include paying a minimum wage and keeping a time card, paying overtime, and paying on time [1]. 2. Sweatshop conditions include excessive working hours, forced overtime, poverty wages, child labour, unsafe working conditions, discrimination, verbal and physical abuse [2]. 3. A sweatshop is a factory where workers are subject to extreme exploitation, including super-low wages, no benefits, filthy or dangerous working conditions, denial of their worker and human rights. Workers in sweatshops typically work long hours for around .25-.60 cents an hour. They are frequently not paid for overtime. When they try to organize unions to demand better conditions, they are often threatened, beaten, and fired instantly. Sweatshops also frequently include other worker abuses such as child labor, dangerous or toxic working conditions, unreasonably long working hours, sexual abuse, beatings and humiliation for mistakes [3]. As you can see, my depiction of what a sweatshop really is has been very accurate. Moving on to Pro's next mistake, he writes, "It is clear that sweatshop jobs are better because the people take the jobs. If the sweatshop jobs were worse, why would so many people be working there instead of elsewhere?" This only proves that people view working in sweatshops as the best course of option for their survival. However, once again Pro must prove why - according to an ethical standard - people should be subject to the worst possible conditions simply because they view most all and any atrocities as better than death. Pro writes, "Why would you say they are being exploited?" As I've explained, they are being exploited because they are purposefully being treated as a means to an end with little to no regard for human dignity. While it's obvious that any company's goal is to profit, they can and should find ways to profit while ensuring MINIMAL working requirements to the employees upon whom they depend. As I said, the employees cannot use their labor as leverage for demanding better pay or conditions, because we live in a world where there is always someone "worse off" who devalue the labor of the sweatshop workers. Pro continues, "Wouldn't they be exploited more by domestic labor, which pays less? They often have better conditions and better pay." I never saw any proof that domestic labor paid less, but nevertheless, the answer is no because with domestic labor we can assume that they're not being abused. As I've explained, to be considered a "sweatshop" mandates abuse of some kind. Now onto Pro's economic mistakes. He writes, "My opponent argues that once they aren't willing to work as cheap, the company will move elsewhere and start over. This acknowledges that it helps people rise above what they used to have, first of all." This implies that 'rising above' means they can demand higher labor wages. However, since they move elsewhere (which Pro doesn't deny - and he shouldn't, because it's been proven incessantly) then it makes their demands useless and without any weight. In other words, my contention stands. He continues, Second, it would be silly to move the entire factory out of one country to another with little reason..." which demonstrates his ignorance of the way sweatshops actually do this all the time. Pro lies, "If you talk to many people working in sweatshops, you will find that they like their job, and would be terribly upset if it was gone." No - they will tell you that they hate their job, and that they only sustain those conditions because they want to survive. The only reason they would be upset if it were gone is because they don't understand the supply and demand curve of economics, which apparently my opponent doesn't either (since he never challenged them having less money = the prices of goods in their area goes down). Next Pro continues implying that sweatshops are ethical simply because people are willing to work in them. Once again, this does not invoke any ethical arguments. Is murder ethical simply because people are willing to kill? One's willingness to engage in something they seem as necessary for their own survival does *not* necessarily make it ethical. Pro's arguments are far-fetched and desperate, such as when he writes, "This leads to better pay or competition over others who would work the same job. A company wouldn't want to leave where they already invested so much into human capital." On the contrary, these workers have little to no value as their jobs are low paying specifically because they require little to know previous knowledge or experience. Their jobs are *incredibly expendable* - the National Labor Committee agrees [4]. Here's another lie - "The vicious cycle does not 'keep them poor.' It makes them richer..." As I explained, the workers stay poor because they cannot demand higher wages for their labor, as their labor is expendable and there are people worse off willing to do their job for less money. Additionally Pro has not proven that sweatshop workers are any "better off" - and just that sweatshops allow them to survive. Again, he must prove through ethical reasoning why they should be treated solely as means to ends (contrary to Kant's categorical imperative as well as the other ethical standards I mentioned in R1). (c) Re: Voluntary Work / Consequentialism For reasons I stated above, consequentialism is unsufficient as an ethical standard. Pro's clean sheet analogy is also flawed, as he assumes that without sweatshops the people would die. However, people existed primitively far before sweatshops ever became a reality, and people survive in poor countries without sweatshops (such as in many African nations). This also ignores the reality that without sweatshops the cost of living in 3rd world countries would go down. Again, Pro must explain why it is ethically acceptable to use people SOLELY as a means for profit just because they want to survive. [1] http://www.globalexchange.org... [2] http://en.maquilasolidarity.org... [3] http://www.goodmoney.com... [4] http://www.nlcnet.org...