Sweatshops Essay free essay sample

The global intercontinental coorporations sweatshops capture the requirements of the CLS and this way they are providing better options and opportunities to the workers in the third world contries. Maitland claims, that the multinational business corporations must inform their employees of the risks and hazards, to which each one of them is subjected at the work place. This idea corresponds with Milton friedmans view that freedom equals choice as biliteral, voluntary and informed transaction. The idea of negative freedom in the sweatshops ( meaning: that corporations are giving the opportunity to poor people to work and labor, are limiting their choice in the same time) is obvious. Friedmain says that lack of options limits ones freedom and Ians keeps repeating that when the companies satisfies his CLS conditions , the multinational sweatshops are giving better options to the third world countries. Thomas Carson gives his objections to the CLS by addressing three cases directly to Maitland, he is not arguing that Ians thesis is not moral, but it does not settle the moral questions at issue. We will write a custom essay sample on Sweatshops Essay or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In his first case, he describes the following situation: He lives in rural North Dakota and he has a very sickly woman as a neighbour. There is a huge blizzard that leaves the village without electricity and their only option is to use wood stoves and fireplaces. Since his neigbour does not have any of these, he is giving her the option to help her in exchange of her antique prize collection. In the second case, the situation is almost the same , a man carring a suitcase with a lot of money in it, sprains his ancle, but there is a huge torm coming and there is only one person, who could help him, of course in exchange of his suitcase. In response to those two cases, Maitland argues that the situations in the cases are different of those in the sweatshops : I don’t think the cases are relevantly similar ( Carson, 4). His arguments are that, since there is not equal base for the sweatshops and the two cases, judgements cannot be made reasonably in order to justifies ones thesis. The third case that Carsons describes is situationthat takes place in a hike and there are more people, who are able to help, the one in need. Here Maitland provides his argument, that those cases are based on emergencies situation, while the sweatshops in the third world are chronicle condition. Later on in the text Carsons provides us with the Ians argument : What about that ‘‘saddling’’ multinational corporations with additional duties will have harmful consequences since it will make them less likely to offer employment to people in poor countries? ( Carsons, 5) . Thomas argues, that this is unclear and confussed, but is also supporting the idea that in general the international corporation are more willing to limit the freedom of the third world labor, than the business corporations recognized by the CLS. Till the end of the article, Carsons explaines and gives support to how and what his arguments do and do not apply to Ian Maitlands view on the etichal relationship between sweatshops, employees and multinational business corporations. In this text, the main idea of the author is revealed in the article Free Exchange for Mutual Benefit. Wich leads us to the main questions and argument of Carson: 1) What is freedom? Is it exchangable? Does it limit the employees or give them options? 2) Is this exchange between both parties mutual? 3) Does it benefits equal to corporations and cheap labor countries ? First, I would like to begin with a description of sweatshops. The name sweatshop gives us a pretty clear description of how hard is the labor in these pleaces. More over multinational companies sweatshop are instituted in and only in third world countries such as the ones described in the article Indonesia, China. These countries are poor and overpopulated, suffering form unemployement, and the limitations of employement and poverty among the people are something common and chronicle, as described in the text. This is a perfect opportunitiy for a big manufacture corporation to build a sweatshop and provide some of the poor people with sweat labor, pretending to give them freedom and options for it, while at the same time they are limiting, their human rights by providing them with sufficient amount of work for more than 12 hours, a day for example. Yes, Maitland give us argumentation, that a begginng worker , earns 5 times more than local wage. Yes, that might be true, but with what cost, this person earn his wage? 20 hours of labor a day, no personal life, limit of freedom? Maitland based on his CLS, states that if corporations are based on this liberal standartization and if it is freely chosen by informed workers there is mutual transactions between both parties, and this way both parties are satisfied. I support the idea of Carsons, that in the Ians argument, does not bring the etichal issue, or arent companies giving options, to poor people (providing them with labor), actually taking their freedom in exchange for their labor? This would lead me to my next argument about mutual exchange, does it exists between the two parties? I support the idea of Maitland and Friedman, that freedom is a transaction that must be biletaral and mutual in order to benefit both parties. But, since the only idea of corporations and business is profit, there is no such thing as equal mutrual exchange. International Corporations had found a perfect field, to earn bilions of profit each year, claiming that they provide poor third world countries with options. I would like to support my argument with the theory of Ronald Duska, that there is no such thins as relationship other than physical labor ( provided from the workers) to company, wich leads me to my argument that there is no equal benefit from both parties. The labor in third world countries, and not only, the poor people working in these sweatshops are viewed as labor, equipment, machinery. Just instruments for money and profit. I based my arguments and my point of view on Duskas theory and I do not think that in the business, espesically international sweatshops are concerned with any ethical or moral issues,concerning the labor in their seatshops. My personal understanding about the Carsons cases is that they are a simple methaphor for the sweatshops ( meaning the one in need is the third world country people and the person offering help are the big corporations). In all the sititations , we see that the desire to help is driven only by purposes that are far away from ethical and moral, and seek only ones benefit from the situation. Even if the companies are considering the CLS, their primary and only reaseon is their profit and nothing else. I think that he succesfully and indirectly argued his thesis, providing the reader with his cases regarding CLS. In conclusion, Carsons article Free Exchange for Mutual Benefit: Sweatshops and Maitlands Classical Liberal Standard gives us a wide field for argument if Maitlands CLS improves the mutual benefit between labor and manufacturer. I think that there is no such thing as liberal standartization, when it comes , to manufacturers, business and profit. Unfortunatelly, in todays society money drive the world, and the corporations, espesially in the third world countries are limiting the freedom and choice of poor people, and the only one that benefits from that transaction are international corporations. Unfortunatelly moral and ethics, does not take place in the third world, and the multiunational companies are the partie that have the freedom and the choices to control the poor and weak by closing their eyes, with earnings and wages, while limiting the freedom of the individual in the third world.