(1) Prepare an essay on “Sweatshops and Respect For Persons”: by Arnold and Bowi
ID: 2439380 • Letter: #
Question
(1) Prepare an essay on “Sweatshops and Respect For Persons”: by Arnold and Bowie explaining
(i) their Kantian argument for living wage;
(ii) the objection that paying living wages will lead to higher unemployment and in turn harm workers’ interests;
(iii) explain one of Arnold and Bowie’s replies to this objection.
(2) You can make reference to Ian Maitland’s “The Great Non-Debate over International Sweatshops” in your answer to (ii). If you do, make sure that you explain his argument(s) clearly and sufficiently.
600 words-650 words
Explanation / Answer
(i)One test of a robust ethical theory is its ability to shed light on ethical problems. One of the standard criticisms of Immanuel Kant's ethical theory is that it is too abstract and formal to be of any use in practical decision making. We contend that this criticism is mistaken and that Kantian theory has much to say about the ethics of sweatshops. We argue that Kant's conception of human dignity provides a clear basis for grounding the obligations of employers to employees. In particular, we argue that respecting the dignity of workers requires that MNEs and their contractors adhere to local labor laws, refrain from coercion, meet minimum safety standards, and provide a living wage for employees.
Kantian ethics provides a philosophical basis for such moral pronouncements. The key principle here is Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. The popular expression of this principle is that morality requires that we respect people. Kantian ethics argues that each person should be treated as valuable and should never be used simply to satisfy the needs of others. Kant would not believe that the ability for sweatshop workers to avoid other “jobs” to receive income is a morally justifiably excuse for oversea factories to exploit workers. Forcing sweatshop employees to work long, exhausting, dangerous shifts for low wages is not treating them as valuable. “Treating people as ends clearly requires caring about their good. They matter as persons and we must at times and to some extent act for their sake, whether or not we benefit from it” (Audi, 17). If a company could raise sweatshop wages, therefore increasing the standard of living for these workers and only experience a 3% profit decrease, they should do it. U.S corporations that use sweatshops across seas are providing employment for poor citizens, however Kant would argue that these people are being used and “We are never to use people- including low-level, readily replaceable employees”.
One of the most controversial issues concerning sweatshops is the demand that employers raise the wages of employees in order to provide a "living wage.
It is our contention that, at a minimum, respect for employees entails that MNEs and their suppliers have a moral obligation to ensure that employees do not live under conditions of overall poverty by providing adequate wages for a 48-hour workweek to satisfy both basic food needs and basic nonfood needs. Doing so helps to ensure the physical well-being and independence of employees, contributes to the development of their rational capacities, and provides them with opportunities for moral development. This in turn allows for the cultivation of self-esteem. It is difficult to specify with precision the minimum number of hours per week that employees should work in order to receive a living wage. However, we believe that a 48-hour workweek is a reasonable compromise that allows employees sufficient time for the cultivation of their rational capacities while providing employers with sufficient productivity.
(ii) It is not clear that improving employee wages will inevitably lead to the "tragic consequences" that Maitland and others predict. The economic issues under consideration are complex and we cannot address them here in the detail they deserve. Nonetheless, several reasons may be provided for thinking that Maitland's conclusion is incorrect. With regard to the lowest paid formal sector wage earners in developing countries, the assumption that productivity is independent of wage levels is dubious.
As exceptionally low wages are raised, there may be increases in productivity either because of induced management improvements or because of greater labour efficiency due to a decrease in wasteful labour turnover and industrial disputes and to improvements in workers morale and nutrition resulting, in turn, in an increase in the workers willingness and capacity to work and a reduction in the incidence of debilitating diseases, time off due to illness and accidents caused by fatigue. If higher wages, at least over a certain range, are accompanied by certain improvements in labour productivity, it is conceivable that labour costs could decrease rather than increase and to such an extent that employment would not fall. Part of Maitland's analysis rests on the assumption that increased labor costs will inevitably result in higher unemployment in competitive markets. Maitland is correct to identify this view as a common belief among many economists, especially as it relates to minimum wage legislation.
(iii) Objection is that it is economically feasible for MNEs to voluntarily raise wages in factories in developing economies without causing increases in unemployment. MNEs may choose to raise wages while maintaining existing employment levels. Increased labor costs that are not offset by greater productivity may be passed on to consumers, or, if necessary, absorbed through internal cost cutting measures such as reductions in executive compensation.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.