Ian Maitland 2o466r

“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 Maitland’s 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 Kernighan’s 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 Kernighan’s 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 ing 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 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 sur 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.