International Ethics

"We know of no case where a nation developed a modem manufacturing sector without first going through a 'sweatshop' phase. How long ago was it that children could be found working in the textile factories of Lowell, Massachusetts; or Manchester, England; or of Osaka, Japan?"

David Lindauer

This is a quote included in the engineering ethics online textbook at UT as justification for the use of sweatshops, child labor, and other sub-standard working conditions abroad. From my experiences with other Religious Studies, Sociology, and Philosophy courses, I imagine that this acceptance of 'the way things are' would be hotly contested by those with a more liberal mindset, but the initial statement is sadly true.

The real question here is the implication that the way societies have evolved in the past is okay, and should necessarily be carried on into the future. Personally, I don't think it's ethically 'right' for international corporations to take advantage of more vulnerable workers in other countries, but what does 'taking advantage' of these people mean?

For example, say there is a group of people living in a developing country where the wealth distribution is very uneven. That is, a very small percentage of the population holds a disproportionally large percentage of the wealth. Is it wrong for American companies to move in and give factory jobs to many of that country's unemployed, who would otherwise starve, be forced into slave labor, or join militant or renegade groups (think drug trafficking in Mexico or rebels in Sudan)? Surely American companies will give the people better conditions than the alternatives, even if these conditions are not up to par with those in America.

On the flip side, I see the argument against this. There are certain standards set for workers in our country. These standards are presumably based on the idea that workers, no matter their location, have certain human rights. It is fast becoming a human right in this country to be given health-care (like it or not), and other restrictions like the number of hours worked in a day, or the minimum age of workers, or OSHA-regulated working conditions have all become expected norms in America - even enforceable by law. Why should companies treat workers differently in other countries? Aren't Mexicans, Thai, Chinese, and Sudanese all people as well? Did we do something special to be given more human rights than they have?

Regardless of your stance on the issue, as the world becomes more homogeneous, and regulations become increasingly international, it is likely that this problem will get better to some extent, but it could take decades. Capitalist business practices have great advantages - they lead to tough competition, which makes for greater efficiency, they breed innovation, and they allow anyone to (theoretically) work their way up from despondency - but we cannot continue a system that does not recognize basic human rights. Business must tread a fine line between maximizing profit, and treating people for what they are - people.