Sweatshops (+ Issues, Kant vs Utili)

Question 1

What is sweatshop

Answer 1

A sweatshop is a shop or factory which employs workers, sometimes children, for very low pay, long hours in unsafe conditions.

They are seen as a classic case of exploitation. This is because they exploit the lack of choice and opportunity many people have, giving them little choice but to accept terrible working conditions.

Question 2

Sweatshops & CSR.

Answer 2

It is typically considered the responsibility of a business to ensure that none of the products or services in its supply chain are sourced from or make use of sweatshops (community CSR).

Question 3

Sweatshops & whistleblowing.

Answer 3

If a company is discovered to source products from sweatshops without that being public information, it might be thought to be a valid reason to whistle blow.

Question 4

Sweatshops & globalisation.

Answer 4

Sweatshops are often a result of offshore outsourcing which is a consequence of globalisation.

Question 5

The Utilitarian defence of sweatshops as having good consequences.

Answer 5

William MacAskill argues that although sweatshops are ‘horrific’, thinking that boycotting western companies which sell products produced in sweatshops will help the workers there assumes that they have a better opportunity to make a living elsewhere, but “sadly that’s just not the case”.

Question 6

What may happen if we demanded that businesses sacrifice profit to treat their sweatshop employees non-exploitatively

Answer 6

Then businesses will lose their profit incentive to open a sweatshop and will simply stop opening them in third world countries. Then, people in the third world will lose a potential step up the economic ladder.

Question 7

Primark case study.

Sweatshops

Answer 7

Primark were found to be supplied by exploitative factories in the third world that used child labour and paying people very little for extremely long hours. In response to this, Primark cut ties with those suppliers.

Question 8

Critical comparison of Utilitarianism with Kant: Utilitarianism justifies bad actions

Answer 8

**Utilitarianism is incompatible with the basis for human rights which are deontological. **

The idea of human rights was strongly influenced by Kant’s formula of humanity. Kantian ethics would be against sweatshops regardless of their positive consequences, because they treat workers as a mere means.

Question 9

How may Mill’s harm principle solve this problem

Answer 9

Because it suggests that society will be happiest if the rule of not harming others is followed.

The question then is whether exploitation counts as harm. So long as the workers are free to leave any time, technically they accept the risk of harm in the sweatshop because their risk of harm from starvation without the sweatshop is greater. Arguably sweatshops, except in particular circumstances, do not count as harm, therefore. So, sweatshops are permissible

Question 10

What is a criticism of Mills harm principle

Answer 10

Perhaps it’s not permissible for children to work in them though. The Bangladesh factory case study might be something Mill would prohibit too, since it threatened to withhold pay if people didn’t work, which is borderline forced-labour.

Question 11

Bangladesh factory case study

Answer 11

A factory in Bangladesh evacuated because of health and safety concerns, however it then said it would not pay its employees for a month if they didn’t return the next day. So the employees returned, and the next day the factory collapsed on them killing over a thousand of them.

Question 12

Why is Mills approach better than Kants

Answer 12

Kant famously said he would not value consequences even when life was at stake – claiming that lying even to save a life is wrong.

Similarly, Kant would not allow exploitation even if it is generally life-saving when compared to not allowing the exploitation (since without sweatshops there would be more starvation than there would be work-related deaths with sweatshops).

Question 13

The issue of calculation: Util vs Kant

Answer 13

Utilitarianism faces the issue of calculation, but Kant does not.

Question 14

What does utilitarianism seem to require when facing the issue of calculation

Answer 14

• That we know can the future consequences of all the possible actions we could take
• That we can make incredibly complex calculations about the range of possible actions, sometimes under time-constraints.
• That these calculations include the objective measuring of subjective mental states like pleasure and pain.

All three of these conditions are plagued with difficulty, and yet each seems absolutely necessary if we are act on the principle of utility.

Question 15

Application of this issue to CSR

Answer 15

The effects of CSR are difficult to predict, both in terms of how much they might negatively cost a business and how much it might positively affect society or the environment.

Question 16

Application of this issue to Globalisation

Answer 16

The effects of globalisation are very difficult to predict. It’s hard to say how much poverty it might prevent through off-shore outsourcing, or conversely how much it might corrupt markets due to creating monopolies and buying off politicians.

Question 17

Application of this issue to whistleblowing

Answer 17

It’s possible that whistleblowing might cause a company to go bankrupt, causing unhappiness for its employees, or the business might not. It’s very hard to predict that, but then it’s very hard to know whether whistleblowing would maximise happiness.

Question 18

Why is Kants apprach better than the util calculation approach

Answer 18

When defending himself against the murderer at the door scenario, Kant claims that we cannot predict or control consequences and therefore cannot be responsible for them.

All we are morally responsible for is doing our duty.

Arguably Kant’s blanket ban on all actions which treat people as a mere means is the better approach than Utilitarianism’s seemingly futile suggestion that we try and calculate which cases will have good or bad consequences.

Question 19

Bentham’s response to issues with calculation.

Answer 19

Bentham claims that an action is right regarding “the tendency which it appears to have” to maximise happiness.

So, we actually only need to have a reasonable expectation of what the consequences will be based on how similar actions have tended to turn out in the past.

Question 20

Mill’s response to issues with calculation.

Answer 20

Mill’s version of Utilitarianism seems to avoid these issues regarding calculation. We do not need to know the future, nor make incredibly complex calculations.

For Mill, the moral rightness of an action depends on maximise happiness, but because of the immense complexity of that, our only moral obligation is to just do our best to follow the principles geared towards producing happiness of our society

Question 21

The issue of the value of consequences: Util vs Kant

Answer 21

Kant and the issue of failing to appreciate the value of consequences. Kant faces this issue, but Utilitarianism does not. Sometimes actions have very good or bad consequences and Kant seems wrong for not thinking that morally relevant.

The murderer at the door example attempts to show the downside of Kant’s rejection of consequences having moral significance.

Question 22

The issue of the value of consequences: Whistleblowing

Answer 22

some cases of whistleblowing have very bad consequences – at least resulting in misery but sometimes even resulting in death (if the workers lose their job and starve). Just like with lying, Kant would say we must always tell the truth, even if it ends up killing people.

Question 23

The issue of the value of consequences: Whistleblowing
Example

Answer 23

Imagine that a business employed a genius but sadistic scientist who was likely to cure some terrible disease that affected millions. However, they were treating their workforce in some horrible way, but there was no way to gain the valuable research without allowing the exploitation.

A Utilitarian might reason that we should allow the exploitation because the happiness gained would far outweigh the suffering, just like lying to the murderer at the door is justified for its good consequences.

Question 24

The issue of the value of consequences: Globalisation &CSR

Answer 24

can each have very good consequences, even when allowing exploitation. First world countries get very cheap products and third world countries get jobs.

Question 25

Kant’s response:

The issue of the value of consequences: Globalisation &CSR

Answer 25

we cannot predict/control consequences.

Question 26

Countering Kants response..

The issue of the value of consequences: Globalisation &CSR

Answer 26

we can to some degree and therefore to that degree we are morally responsible for consequences and they do matter ethically to the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Question 27

The issue of intentions: Util vs Kant

Answer 27

Utilitarianism faces the issue of intentions and character, but Kant does not.

Utilitarianism only views the consequences of actions as good, not the intention or character (integrity) of the person who performs them. This goes against the intuition that a person can be a good person and can have good/bad intentions.

It is part of Kant’s theory that your moral intention is relevant to the goodness of your action, so he does not face this issue.

Question 28

Application of the issue of intentions: CSR

Answer 28

Utilitarianism would not care about a business merely engaging in CSR for PR out of greed for profit or even for deception to distract from their other unethical practices. So long as the business and its CSR activities overall have good consequences, Utilitarian reasoning seems to be committed to it being morally good.

Question 29

Application of the issue of intentions: Globalisation

Answer 29

Globalisation could

Question 30

Application of the issue of intentions: Whistleblowing

Answer 30

Whistleblowing: A person whistleblowing might only do it in order to bring down a rival company

Kantian ethics would not have this issue because for Kant good intention is essential. We must act out of duty (“duty for duty’s sake”) in order for our action to be morally good.

Question 31

What is Mills response to the issue of intentions

Answer 31

Firstly that a person’s character does matter because it will determine their future actions.The stabber should be condemned for his motive because that will prevent them stabbing others in future.

Secondly, Mill argues that having a good character helps you become happy.

So, Mill might argue that if the intention behind CSR involved greed or deception then that might have bad consequences overall or in the future and therefore can be thought of as morally wrong.

Question 32

Issue of intentions: Why might Kant not be satisfied with Mills response

Answer 32

Kant would not be satisfied by this response, however, as he would maintain that it was the greed and deceptiveness itself that should be regarded as morally deficient.

Question 33

How does this lead to the critique of Kant

Issue of intentions

Answer 33

it is impractical to think humans can act without emotion. Utilitarianism does not have this issue – in fact it accepts that avoiding negative feelings and achieving positive feelings is our ultimate desire/end.