Exploring Sweatshops As Ethically Permissible Practice
The phrase ‘sweatshop’ is often received by the general population as an inherently negative concept, like ‘genocide’ or ‘slavery’. One struggles to think of a context in which they could be seen as a force for good and as a result, the idea that one of these concepts could be ethically permissible seems almost offensive to consider. Yet, in the case of sweatshops, things aren’t so clear cut. American philosopher, Matt Zwolinski argues that they are ethically permissible, and even a force for good. Upon considering his perspective and looking into the concept further, I find I agree that overall, sweatshops are ethically permissible and do benefit the societies they inhabit. In this essay I will be examining arguments against sweatshops to elaborate on why I find them to be ethically permissible.
There are many individuals and organisations who have sought to boycott sweatshops outright over the years. For them, demanding companies to close their sweatshops would be an undeniably positive thing, as the conditions and low wage sweatshop workers have to accept are simply not ethically permissible. Philosopher Noam Chomsky compared the anti sweatshop movements seen among students as being similar to the anti-apatheid movements “In some ways, the student anti-sweatshop movement is like the anti-apartheid movement, except that in this case its striking at the core of the relations of exploitation” (Chomsky, Noam 2000). Such a striking comparison between sweatshops and racial segregation paints a rather ethically impermissable picture. However, I think that demanding sweatshops be shutdown ignores the very important factor; the autonomy of the workers. While sweatshops may seem like an awful choice, it remains their choice. According to philosopher John Kleining, choice 'alters the normative relations in which others stand with respect to what they may do'. While the value of sweatshops may be debatable, free will is quite broadly seen as a human right. If successful, by taking away the worker’s preferred option, boycotters would be limiting these people’s autonomy.
Given that sweatshops are not just a choice these workers have, but in fact their preferred choice, this tells us that while sweatshops may seem like a horrible choice in the context of our first world society, it's clearly the best option available. Removing sweatshops would not only violate the workers autonomy, but it would leave them with worse paying jobs. As Tim Harford puts it in The Undercover Economist, “Workers go there voluntarily, which means — hard as it is to believe — that whatever their alternatives are, they are worse” (Harford, 2005). According to the findings of Benjamin Powell in his article In Defense of “Sweatshops”, “Working in the apparel industry in any one of these countries results in earning more than the average income in that country. In half of the countries it results in earning more than three times the national average”. It appears that sweatshops, as dire as they may seem, are often a source of good within the societies they inhabit.
Despite the fact that the majority of sweatshop workers seem to benefit from choosing to work in sweatshops, some may still object due to the disparity between how much the workers benefit and how much the companies who own the sweatshops benefit. It seems that this exploitation is a key issue from many - “No question about it. I oppose sweatshops, I oppose exploitation of labour in the third world” (Finkelstein, 1996). This type of mutually beneficial exploitation may seem immoral as the distribution of the profits could easily be shifted to better favour the workers. While that would be admirable, realistically, companies have no obligation to do so unless there is a legal minimum wage they are violating. These companies have no obligation to offer jobs in third world countries whatsoever, the appeal of doing so being the low wages. Increasing wages would lessen the appeal of sweatshops for companies, which could mean less sweatshop jobs for those who would see them as a desirable option. Beyond this, it's worth noting at most financial interactions in first world countries could be considered mutually beneficial exploitation. For example, when we purchase food in a shop, we can be quite certain that the shop is making a profit off the transaction. We see to think this is perfectly acceptable, because if we think the transaction does not benefit us sufficiently, we can simply choose not to make the purchase. The same is true of sweatshop workers. So long as the exploitation is perceived as beneficial and not as harmful, it seems we as a society tend to find that sort of interaction to be permissible.
Given that these companies are doing more to improve the lives of their workers than if they closed their sweatshops, it would seem that they are doing more for impoverished communities than most people in the world who do don’t offer jobs and nothing to help these communities. So, if you consider the amount of good these companies do for these to not be enough to be ethically permissible and most people do less good for these communities, then it would seem that the average person's neglect of these communities is not ethically permissible. It seems as though we as a society consider the lack of involvement the average person has in these matters to be ethically permissible, and of sweatshops do more good than what is considered ethically permissible, does that mean we must accept them as at least being as permissible? So why is it that, despite sweatshops being the best source of income, an expression of the workers autonomy and a general benefit to third world countries, people seem so vehemently against them?
Personally I think this is because people misidentify sweatshops as a source of poor conditions as opposed to a symptom of them. Sweatshops exist within poverty, poverty that is perhaps unimaginable to those who think removing sweatshops would somehow solve the workers' problems. I think it is important to not only look at how sweatshops benefit the individual workers, but at whether or not they benefit the impoverished communities they exist within. According to a study by researchers at the Universities of Washington and Yale, villages in Bangladesh with access to sweatshops see young girls become less likely to be married off or become pregnant (28% and 29% respectively) and more likely to enroll in schools (38. 6% more likely). This is due to the fact that when families have more money, they can afford to keep their daughters at home and not marry them off, and can afford to educate them. From this, it seems that while sweatshops aren’t the cause of the issues in impoverished areas but can be directly responsible for improving them.
An issue that persists is whether we should be basing our moral judgements on outcomes or intentions. If we look at the intentions of the companies that choose to set up sweatshops, it seems to be a symptom of a socio-economic concept called the ‘race to the bottom’, which refers to the corporate desire to make the largest profits for the cheapest cost. If we ask if sweatshops are permissible on the grounds of intention, they seem less justified as they seek to take advantage of those who are desperate for an income and will work for pay we here in first world countries considering the hours and conditions. These companies most likely could pay their sweatshop workers more and still make a profit if their goal was to help the community. While I would not argue whether these corporations are moral or immoral as a whole, I would argue that judging actions based on intentions is an unreliable measurement if one hopes to judge the permissibility of actions. For one, intentions just don’t have the same real measurable impact of actions. For those desperate for work, good intentions cannot provide income for their families. When the situation is life or death people generally don’t concern themselves with where help comes from so long as they get what they need to live another day. Secondly, there’s no real tangible way to tell someone’s intentions, which makes aiming to judge others based on what only they can know for sure, doomed to fail. Lastly, ‘good’ intentions can lead to disastrous outcomes, and would would not tell a person whose actions have caused unwanted harm that their actions are ethically permissible.
One factor of Matt Zwolinski’s argument for sweatshops that I find fault with is his choice to not engage with the moral psychology of the sweatshop issue. Zwolinski choses to not focus on this aspect because “there is such widespread disagreement among philosophers regarding what precise form a correct moral theory will have”. This is a reasonable point in my eyes. Depending on one’s meta ethical stance, you might find the question “are sweatshops ethically permissible?” to be a meaningless one, say if you were held a moral view based in error theory. However, while Zwolinski chooses not to label his moral doctrine, I feel it is a moral relativist one, as he appeals to what is generally seen as acceptable within society to justify his statements about what is right and wrong. I have followed the same logic here. Having acknowledged this, I think it is worth noting that I find sweatshops morally permissible because they do not conflict with practices within society that people find permissible. We live in a capitalist society, where the goal to create wealth is a priority, as historian Carrol Quigley puts it “Capitalism might be defined, if we wish to be scientific, as a form of economic organization motivated by the pursuit of profit within a price structure”. Companies are expected to value profit first and foremost over benefiting people, ideally so that people will not be discriminated against. It is because of this system that sweatshops are permissible and if this system is the foundation of our society then it seems like inconsistent logic to not object to this system but object to its natural conclusion. If companies are expected to value profit, if there is no limitations to the profits they make and they are encouraged to invest globally then they will ultimately find the cheapest solutions they can find wherever they may be. In our current society I think consistent logic dictates sweatshops are ethically permissible.
In conclusion, I believe that despite their overwhelmingly negative image, sweatshops are ethically permissible, due to the positive impacts they have on those who choose to work their and their communities as a whole. While the financial motivations for setting up sweatshops and the desire to exploit those in poverty are not admirable qualities of those who choose to set up sweatshops, the motivations do not change the positive impact sweatshops have. They do more good for impoverished communities than the average person does and depend upon enticing workers to come work in them by offering them an attractive wage.
Works Cited
- Chomsky, Noam. 'Talking 'Anarchy' With Chomsky', The Nation. 2000
- Finkelstein, Norman. Goldstone Recants. Richard Goldstone renews Israel's license to kill. OR Books, New York. 1996
- Harford, Tim. The Undercover Economist. Abacus, London. 2007
- Glewwe, Paul. “Are Foreign-Owned Businesses in Vietnam Really Sweatshops?” University of Minnesota, Minnesota. 2000
- Kleinig, John. “Consent”, Encyclopedia of Ethics, L. Becker & C. Becker. Routledge, New York. 2001.
- Zwolinski, Matt. “Sweatshops, Choice, And Exploitation”. Business Ethics Quarterly vol 14. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2007.
- Carroll Quigley. “The evolution of civilizations: an introduction to historical analysis”. Liberty Fund Inc, Indiana. 1979.
