Dilemma 4: Sweatshops and social justice

This article discusses the ethical dilemma of sweatshops and social justice. It explores the arguments for and against sweatshops and the role of individuals in addressing the issue. The article provides insights into the choice and limited choice approaches, as well as the Kantian ethical perspective and utilitarianism.

Running head: DILEMMA 4: SWEATSHOPS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 1
Dilemma 4: Sweatshops and social justice
Student’s Name
University

DILEMMA 4: SWEATSHOPS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 2
Dilemma 4: Sweatshops and social justice
Sweatshops have raised the ethical issue of whether assisting the people in low-income
countries earn a living by paying them little that makes sense in their countries or not giving
them work at all. Those in support of the ethical nature of sweatshops like the case of the
clothing company that Gabriella works argue that the sweatshops provide positive roles by
making the people in question earn a living rather than stay at home and suffer in poverty (Kates,
2015). This approach implies that the means does not justify end but rather the outcome that the
business receives. The fact that the women who work in the sweatshops are not coerced seems to
work well with those who believe that they are assisting these people. The choice approach of
sweatshops views this issue as the exercise of autonomy where people are left to make their own
decisions on the work that they wish to engage in thus making the sweatshops ethically
appropriate.
On the other hand, there is the limited choice approach which views the unethical nature
of sweatshops and the exploitative nature that they have on the people who work for them. The
limited choice approach views the nature in which the companies that run these sweatshops take
advantage of the limited economic opportunities to exploit such workers (Powell & Zwolinsk,
2011). Such companies are benefiting from the poor women’s opportunities. Thus capitalizing on
human misery does not make the world a better place since it goes against the ethical spirit of
corporate social responsibility. The fact that the working conditions in Bangladesh sweatshops
cannot apply if the factory was in Australia means that the company is practicing unethical
standards that are against the spirit of human rights and labor standards. This means that the
focus of the company should not be only cutting labor costs but rather creating working
conditions that recognize the development of the modern world and the definition of labor

DILEMMA 4: SWEATSHOPS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 3
standards in Australia. Rather than employing double exploitation of the poor the company needs
to develop better conditions that can include using the rates of Bangladesh which I believe are
still lower than Australia.
In the case of Gabriella, the presence of Nathan presents a better opportunity to champion
the rights of poor women and addressing the ethical concerns that exist. Since the sweatshops
have been there before, her refusal to take the job does not change the vulnerable situation of the
poor women in Bangladesh. Since she is in charge of working conditions, her idea and the
feeling on the ethical issues that revolve around the sweatshops can change if management in
Australia can be made to understand the ethical issues that exist. The work of Gabriela will be to
change the idea that sweatshops present a stage of development in the developing countries that
the people need to go through before achieving development. The fact that the women who work
in such factories understand the maltreatment, exploitation and even the suppression that they
undergo means that they have no other option since these sweatshops provide the first choice for
employment.
From the Kantian ethical perspective, people are supposed to be responsible for the moral
code that defines the profession that they hold (Bailey, 2013). Thus Gabriella needs to conduct
herself in a manner that shows the business requirements that are required in Australia. The role
of Gabriella, in this case, will be to present moral decision-making on the ethical nature of the
sweatshops against the women that are exploited to make the country generate the billions of
revenue. This means that she is supposed to exemplify the highest level of integrity by doing
what she thinks is the right thing to fight for the needs of these women. According to Portmore
(2011), consequentialists argue that the right and the wrong actions depend on the results of the
action that are being done. Thus actions that are chosen should have good consequences for the

DILEMMA 4: SWEATSHOPS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 4
people and society. Thus the actions of the company that Gabriella works for the need to be
rationalized in the context of the women who toil in the sweatshops. Thus by combining the
consequentialist and the Kantian goodwill, there is a need for someone to stand up and address
the working conditions of the women in sweatshops. It may not be an easy task but by addressing
one issue at a time, the working conditions of the people can be changed thus creating better
working conditions and addressing the ethical concerns of the sweatshops in Bangladesh.
Response
Everyone has the passion of finishing college and getting a job that complements the
career mission that one had. In this case, Gabriella seems to have found herself the best
opportunity for working in a position that fulfills her career objectives. This means that as an
individual, the work responsibilities that she has should be aligned to the business objectives of
the organization that she works for. This implies that as an individual in charge of the operations
in sweatshop her priorities for work should be aligned to fulfilling the needs of the organization.
Thus as an individual, the responsibility that she has is based on the terms of reference for the
job that she had taken up rather than her personal feelings about the sweatshops. As a
professional, her role is to promote the interests of the organization rather than champion her
own feeling.
From the theory of choice, the nature of sweatshops and the people who work in can be
understood from choice and autonomy. From the choice argument, the women have chosen to
work in the sweatshops since they offer them a form of employment and a way of supporting
their family (Ferguson & Ostmann, 2018). This means that the women have the choice of taking
the job or leaving it. From an economic point of view, if the sweatshops are closed, then the
women will be on the losing end since she shops can be moved to another place where other

DILEMMA 4: SWEATSHOPS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 5
people will get employed while the women will remain jobless. Thus the benefits that the women
derive from the shop are greater than those the suffering that they receive. On the other hand, the
autonomy argument is based on justifying the authenticity of the shops and the ethics of
providing room for the women to work (Zwolinski, 2012). Thus interfering with the work of the
women are failing to respect their desires, goals and their authentic will to work in the shops.
Since the women do not work in this conditions to enjoy but rather work to survive, Gabriella
should focus on ensuring that the quality control in the sweatshops is high so that business can
continue for the organization thus accommodating the presence of the women. From the
conditions in Bangladesh, working in the sweatshops is far better than staying at home to face
the economic conditions in the country.
From the theory of utilitarianism, the concept of what is good and bad can be different in
Australia and Bangladesh which creates differences in the value of the pleasure principle that the
people get. The utility approach looks at maximizing the utility of both the organization and the
women through ensuring that the utility is maximized (Teck, How, Karuppiah, & Ho, 2018).
Thus pushing western philosophies may not be viable which may affect the pleasure principle of
the women. Since the women are seeking to achieve the pleasure principle, it means that their
engagement in sweatshops is purely for increasing their own utility, thus the nature of the
conditions is not an issue to them. This means that Gabriella should strive to increase utility for
both the company that she works for and the people that work in the shops. For the women, their
only utility option is having the shops operational for as long as possible so that they can
continue to enjoy the utility benefits. For Gabriella, the utility approach is to focus on the needs
of the company and ensure that the organization meets its objectives.

DILEMMA 4: SWEATSHOPS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 6
Despite the fact that Natasha has pointed out the issues that need to be addressed in the
sweatshops, she needs to understand that the relationship between resources and productivity
work in a reverse mode in the capitalistic world. This means that Natasha needs to understand
the organizations exist only to make profits and the more the profits the more the health of the
organization (Snyder, 2008). Natasha also needs to understand that the reason why the company
opened the sweatshop is to maximize utilities and achieve better profits. This means that
changing the nature of business in any way will reduce the utilities of the organization which in
turn affects the health of the organization which will trickle down to the women workers. Thus
the conditions are better if they stay that way so that the organization can maximize its profits
thus prolonging its existence in the country.
Therefore, Gabriella needs to take the job and focus on the priority of meeting the basic
requirements of the women in the sweatshops but focusing on the utility rather than thinking
about the theories of Nathan. She should further make Nathan understand that the workers are
only seeking to achieve their utility needs thus despite the conditions they are maximizing their
utilities which have allowed them to attain the pleasure principle. The same should apply to
Gabriella and the organization that she represents which is the need for her to take the job and
focus on achieving the objectives of the organization.

DILEMMA 4: SWEATSHOPS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 7
References
Bailey, T. (2013). Analysing the Good Will: Kant's Argument in the First Section of the
Groundwork. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 18(4), 635–662.
Kates, M. (2015). The Ethics of Sweatshops Limits of Choice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(2),
191-211.
Portmore, D. (2011). Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Powell, B., & Zwolinsk, M. (2011). The Ethical and Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor:
A Critical Assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(10).