Those who defend sweatshop labor, typically point out that conditions in sweatsh

Question

Those who defend sweatshop labor, typically point out that conditions in sweatshops are bad, but that the alternative is worse. If we were to improve conditions, for example, fewer people would be employed in sweatshops, and so more people would have to return to the informal sector (and the informal sector is much worse than the formal sector where sweatshops are located). Views such as this seem to adopt the following line of reasoning:

1. If the only alternative to a practice is worse than the practice, then the practice is morally acceptable.

2. The only alternatives to sweatshops are worse than sweatshops.

3. Sweatshops are therefore permissible.

Do you find this line of argumentation persuasive? Explain. If you do not agree with this line of reasoning, tell me which premise you reject and why.

Explanation / Answer

I donot find this arguement persuasive because morality is not always decided by circumstances eg universal moral values apply uniformly irrespective of situations.

If only alternative to a practise is worse than the practice then that practice might be permissible but need not necessarily be morally acceptable . So I disagree with premise 1 while premise 3 appears to be persuasive .

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.