Sweatshops are ethical

So far in this debate, Pro has cited one contention only: that sweatshops improve lives. Of course he has the burden of explaining how sweatshops improve lives; we can not automatically accept it to be true as that commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. In support of his contention, Pro notes three specific factors: (a) Sweatshops Don't Cause Harm Workers allege verbal, physical and sexual abuse by supervisors in sweatshops. So, while the workers aren't "forced" to work in certain places, they must choose (to survive) to work under people who abuse them daily. They also suffer psychological abuse as many are forced to work under armed supervision and are physically assaulted with no legal protection if their productivity is not up to standards. Workers are also forced to work overtime; if they do not work overtime (without extra pay) they are fired - despite overtime obviously not being a part of the contract. Many workers report rape, and again survival mandates they keep their jobs thus more psychological, emotional and physical damage [1]. (b) They Provide Better Jobs Than The Average Jobs While it's true that wages of sweatshop workers are often higher than the average wage for a citizen in a third world country to live on, there is no evidence that the jobs of sweatshop workers are "better." Simply because one job might pay more than another doesn't make it "better" - especially if the workers are being exploited via working exceptionally long work days, or subject to harsh practices in unsafe conditions. If "better" simply concerns wages, then essentially the argument is that one could choose to have a dangerous, exhausting and unsafe job in a sweatshop vs. having no job at all, or a job that pays less. While one might choose to work in a sweatshop for their own survival (to afford the costs of minimal standards of living), then in no way does it make sweatshops ethical, but rather shows how they are a means to an end. Indeed something can only be considered a sweatshop in the first place if it specifically aims to keep the workers as poor as possible by maximizing profits for the company while having no regard for employees. Many economists have suggested that sweatshops actually improve the standard of living because they create a demand for employees. For instance, by paying workers so little, there is a demand for their labor which incrases company investment in their labor. More demand for their labor means competition amongst companies to compete by offering them higher wages and better conditions. While this little scenario seems nice, this is not the reality of what occurs. In reality, once the workers can demand higher wages or better conditions, companies simply move to another country; they find people who are even more desparate to employ. In this way, they can still pay as little as possible for labor, and all of the people who were once employed by sweatshops in one country lose their jobs thus remaining poor. Demand for their labor doesn't increase because companies simply hire different labor. Their jobs are outsourced putting them once again in a vulnerable position where any labor at all seems better than starvation. So, as you can see, this system is oppressive as it doesn't truly give laborers the opportunity to invest or raise above their current economic standard, nor does it ensure a minimal standard of living. Instead, they are trapped in a vicious cycle that keeps them poor. Capitalism fails in this regard as the idea is that demand for labor will increase, though this actually is not true. Pro says that having a small wage via sweatshops is better than having a smaller wage from a non-sweatshop. The very core of economics (supply and demand) says otherwise. If the people are poorer, demand will be lower since they will not be able to afford as much. Lower demand means lower prices. We see that reflected in our own society; people are losing their jobs, and as such the cost of things like houses has dropped drastically in order to remain competitive. This is when able people buy which increases their wealth, and gives them the opportunity to invest in business ventures which tend to create more jobs, and so on. (c) The Workers Choose To Work There Voluntarily If Pro acknowledges that working in a sweatshop is the best course of action in terms of survival (wages), then he must prove that there is no minimal ethical standard other than survival. This stands contrary to many ethical systems including Kant's categorical imperative. According to this philosophy, we should not treat a rational being merely as a means but always as an end in itself [2]. While it's true that employees will always be used as a means to make a profit, it becomes immoral when employees are seen *merely* as a means for profit; in other words used in a way that's inconsistent with recognizing the employee as a free and rational moral agent. When employers take advantage of unfair situations and desparate workers, they undermine the autonomy of those people who have no other realistic options. Another way of thinking about this is considering "The Golden Rule" of treating people how you'd want to be treated. If you would not consent to being exploited, then you must judge that it would be morally wrong for you to exploit people in that way [3]. == CON'S ARGUMENT CONTD. == Another ethical standard is utalitarianism. In other words, we must consider the consequences of how raising workers' wages would affect everyone. In that way, we can see how it would benefit westerners, for instance, because it would give companies less of an incentive to outsource jobs. If outsourcing wasn't a huge factor in American economics, our current economic condition would be better off [4]. As such, even from a purely capitalist standpoint outsourcing does not benefit the market. A company might say they need to outsource in order to "remain competitive" i.e. keep prices low so people still buy their product; however, if people don't have jobs, then they won't have money to buy any products. This is precisely why our mixed economy fails; it rewards people by giving them unearned money (i.e. welfare) which does nothing for competition and innovation (productivity) -- it just ensures that businesses stay afloat by making Americans worse off, and maximizing corporate gains while hurting the people who drive the nation's ecomomy. Additionally, many companies adhere to (and even promise in their mission statements) corporate responsibility. Corporate Responsibility is when businesses promote the public interest by encouraging community growth and development, and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public. It is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making [5]. Because "every man is an island" does not apply to the market, economists agree that corporate responsibility plays a large part in capitalistic gains as the market tends to base certain decisions on social implications. So, ensuring minimal employee standards is even beneficial to the companies itself from an objectivist stance on ethics considering the bad rap of sweatshops [6]. In conclusion, sweatshops are unethical and negative according to a wide array of ethical standards. Thanks, Pro, and good luck. [1] http://www.hartford-hwp.com... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] Journal of Social Philosophy. 2007. Blackwell Publishing Inc. Volume 38 - Number 4. pp. 620 - 626 [4] http://www.seattlepi.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] Bhattacharya, C.B., Sankar Sen and Daniel Korschun. 2008. "Using Corporate Social Responsibility to Win the War for Talent". MIT Sloan Management Review. pp. 37-44. / The Economist. 2005. "The Good Company".