Beyond the Convention, another View of Moral Judgment and Sweatshop
A negative convention has accompanied with sweatshops since day one the first sweatshop exists. People believed that sweatshops were unethical and confirmed their convention by the definition of sweatshop presented by ethics teachers and researchers Denis Arnold and Laura Hartman:
…“sweatshop” as a any workplace in which workers are typically subject to two or more of the following conditions: systematic forced overtime; systematic health and safety risks that stem from negligence or the willful disregard of employee welfare; coercion; systematic deception that place workers at risk; underpayment of earnings; and income for a 48 hour work week less than the overall poverty for that country…. (July 2005) Sweatshops are labeled as absolutely wrong and unethical practice employed by multinational companies in order to lower their cost. And in Europe and North American, products from sweatshops are boycotted by customers. But the problem is complicated in real world and is becoming a dilemma somehow. This article is representing reasons why sweatshops should be kept by illustrating positive contributions of sweatshop in a country’s developing process and in help of people’s life, and trying to figure out the prejudice among overwhelming criticisms.
As an inevitable stage in economic development process, sweatshops play an important economic role in both developed countries in the past and developing counties now. Sweatshops, which first appeared in Great Britain in late 18th century, sprang up in early 19th century in United States. Moreover, in a comprehensive review by Benjamin Powell (Summer 2004) shows that sweatshops have participated the fast boom from 1950s in four East Asian countries: South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. Before they carried themselves to the wealthy first world countries, these countries went through a sweatshop stage which brought over ten times the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document