The Great Non-Debate over International Sweatshops

By Ian Maitland
Linda DellaPia MGT 570 Ethics
Many critics of International sweatshops urge a living wage standard of worker
treatment, but Maitland defends the classical liberal standard. Critics argue that the
classical liberal, free market, standard is not acceptable on the grounds that some sort of
market of the background conditions are lacking for markets to work effectively. The
rights of unemployed workers have the options necessary to effectively bargain for
decent working conditions. The inequality of bargaining power between workers and
multinational corporations enables multinational corporations to manipulate negotiations
in their favor and exploit workers.
In reading Maitlands article, the charges against sweatshops are accessible in an
precise method. He does not run away from the charges of child labor; and abuses of
human rights, however, he relies a bit too much on the idea that those who wish to bring
awareness to the situation are sensationalist and doing this for publicity. His words about
Kernighans efforts in this realm seem to suggest a desire for media coverage. And what
is right or wrong with Capitalism as an economic system. His arguments about
Kernighans labors in this state seem to suggest a want for media attention
There are various types of relativism where people disagree, when people
disagree, there is no correct answer. You do not know which one is right. What is the
point of having moral discussion if you hold the philosophical version? You are basically
saying moral beliefs have no objectivity only a matter of taste. Normative Ethical
Relativism asserts both Philosophical Ethical Relativism and a non-imposition of our

beliefs on those who disagree. This should be a conclusion of an argument for any given
dispute.
Maitland's denial against the statements are bound by slight impacts in which he
hopes that the reader assumes his idea of supporting classical liberalism. For example, he
criticizes the argument that the sweatshop lacks a "livable wage" by suggesting that
sweatshop wages "are comparable wages in the labor markets where they operate:
According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), multinational companies often
apply standards relating to wages, benefits, conditions of work, and occupational safety
and health, which both exceed statutory requirements and those practiced by local firms.
In another critique, Maitland argues that workers who works in such areas as sweatshops
achieve the doctrines of economic liberalism if they choose to do so out of their own free
will. Maitland quotes the World Bank as a source for this analysis: "The appropriate
level is therefore that at which the costs are commensurate with the value that informed
workers place on improved working conditions and reduced risk." In Maitland's eyes, the
idea that the workers are pawns of "evil capitalists" moderates their self-rule and sense of
choice, the very core of the dispute against the sweatshops in the first place.
Maitland's conclusion is one that upholds the marketplace as the realm where the
issue of sweatshops must be resolved. He cites examples where action taken to "improve
the conditions of the marketplace" have contained "tragic consequences." Using
economic scrutiny. Maitland is able to support the marketplace's control to self- correct,
comprising classical liberal approaches. In this, Maitland suggests that if one really
wishes to improve the life of the workers in question, they will help the market in selfcorrection and safeguard that it is honorably suitable to contain, not surpass market

standards in the name of economic tolerance Maitland is going through all the arguments,
he is asserting them first and not the conclusion. Being that he is disputing, he has given
evidence that the argument of all the competing sides are equal, he did not just start with
his view.
What Maitland disappoints to report is how the offensive levels of prosperity that
the employing companies of sweatshops produce come at the cost of terrible
destitution. Maitland places faith in the marketplace, but there is a point in which other
factors besides the marketplace can be used to determine if action is needed. Metrics
such as keeping an eye to the upkeep of the community order or even seeking to request
that businesses assign profits for other publically reliable projects are ignored in his
analysis. Can the marketplace put a value on the psychological damage involved in child
labor? This faith in the capitalist metric of the market is where the discussion regarding
how to improve capitalism must take place.
Problems aside, the globalized world has embraced it and thus finding ways to
improve it becomes the responsibility and crucible faced in the 21st Century. There is no
correct moral position, and, like Maitland, we should tolerate those who disagree. We
should not be uncivil when criticizing others. It is not exemption from your opinion to be
critiqued. Rational analysis is the bottom line, respect to their beliefs.