IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v25y2015i02p191-212_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Ethics of Sweatshops and the Limits of Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Kates, Michael

Abstract

This article examines the “Choice Argument” for sweatshops, i.e., the claim that it is morally wrong or impermissible for third parties to interfere with the choice of sweatshop workers to work in sweatshops. The Choice Argument seeks, in other words, to shift the burden of proof onto those who wish to regulate sweatshop labor. It does so by forcing critics of sweatshops to specify the conditions under which it is morally permissible to interfere with sweatshop workers’ choice. My aim in this article is to meet that burden. Unlike other critics of sweatshop labor, however, my argument does not proceed from contested economic or moral assumptions. To the contrary, my strategy will be to demonstrate that even if we grant the truth of the economic and moral assumptions made by defenders of the Choice Argument, it nevertheless does not follow that it is morally wrong to interfere with the choice of sweatshop workers to work in sweatshops. The Choice Argument thus fails on its own terms.

Suggested Citation

  • Kates, Michael, 2015. "The Ethics of Sweatshops and the Limits of Choice," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 191-212, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:25:y:2015:i:02:p:191-212_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X15000093/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andreas Ostermaier & Dominik Aaken, 2020. "Freedom trumps profit: a liberal approach to business ethics," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(5), pages 947-962, June.
    2. Jessica Flanigan, 2018. "Sweatshop Regulation and Workers’ Choices," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 79-94, November.
    3. Fan, Di & Lo, Chris K.Y. & Zhou, Yi, 2021. "Sustainability risk in supply bases: The role of complexity and coupling," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    4. Huseyin S. Kuyumcuoglu, 2021. "Sweatshops, Harm, and Interference: A Contractualist Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-11, February.
    5. Benjamin Powell, 2018. "Sweatshop Regulation: Tradeoffs and Welfare Judgements," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 29-36, August.
    6. Joshua Preiss, 2019. "Freedom, Autonomy, and Harm in Global Supply Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 881-891, December.
    7. Kristian Alm & David S. A. Guttormsen, 2023. "Enabling the Voices of Marginalized Groups of People in Theoretical Business Ethics Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(2), pages 303-320, January.
    8. Michael S. Aßländer, 2021. "Sweated Labor as a Social Phenomenon Lessons from the 19th Century Sweatshop Discussion," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 313-328, May.
    9. Silviya Dimitrova, 2017. "Ethical Issues in Multinational Companies' Business," Izvestia Journal of the Union of Scientists - Varna. Economic Sciences Series, Union of Scientists - Varna, Economic Sciences Section, issue 1, pages 224-236, November.
    10. Travis Timmerman & Abe Zakhem, 2021. "Sweatshops and Free Action: The Stakes of the Actualism/Possibilism Debate for Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(4), pages 683-694, July.
    11. András Miklós, 2019. "Exploiting Injustice in Mutually Beneficial Market Exchange: The Case of Sweatshop Labor," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 59-69, April.
    12. Damian Bäumlisberger, 2021. "A Nozickian Case for Compulsory Employment Injury Insurance: The Example of Sweatshops," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 13-27, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:25:y:2015:i:02:p:191-212_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.