ian maitland

8/10/2019 Ian Maitland

1/4

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

Kernighansefforts 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


2/4

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 self-

correction and safeguard that it is honorably suitable to contain, not surpass market


3/4

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.


4/4

ian maitland

Documents