in ,

ARTICLE LINK – The Ethics of Sweatshops and the Limits of Choice

Journal: Business Ethics Quarterly

Author: Micheal Kates

Publication Date/Info: Volume 25, Issue 2

Abstract:

This article examines the “Choice Argument” for sweatshops, i.e., the claim that it is morally wrong or impermissible for third parties to interfere with the choice of sweatshop workers to work in sweatshops. The Choice Argument seeks, in other words, to shift the burden of proof onto those who wish to regulate sweatshop labor. It does so by forcing critics of sweatshops to specify the conditions under which it is morally permissible to interfere with sweatshop workers’ choice. My aim in this article is to meet that burden. Unlike other critics of sweatshop labor, however, my argument does not proceed from contested economic or moral assumptions. To the contrary, my strategy will be to demonstrate that even if we grant the truth of the economic and moral assumptions made by defenders of the Choice Argument, it nevertheless does not follow that it is morally wrong to interfere with the choice of sweatshop workers to work in sweatshops. The Choice Argument thus fails on its own terms.

LINK:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/ethics-of-sweatshops-and-the-limits-of-choice/5D9FE09A8E5D105B84AEC916F0AC654C

What do you think?

Written by Dylan Watson

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading…

0

Comments

0 comments

ARTICLE LINK-Evaluation Markers and Mitigators in Analyst Reports in Light of Market Response to Stock Recommendations

What can Lincoln teach us about Communication?