Sweatshop Morality

A utilitarian would think that sweatshops are immoral because the consequential suffering and pain that the factory workers endure are greater than the resulting economic benefits (wages, products). This is definitely true when comparing the workers pain against the resulting money that consumers save by shopping at big box stores such as Walmart. The intended price differential that consumers benefit from is trivial compared to the suffering that is associated with sweatshops. I imagine that most people would agree that saving ten dollars on a television at Walmart is not worth Meem’s stolen childhood.  However, a grey area appears when comparing the workers suffering to the workers “benefits”. Regardless of how low the wage may be, they are still being paid. One could argue that although working conditions and wages are awful, it is better than the potential mass unemployment. Opponents of sweatshops suggest that wages and working conditions should be improved; however, that may not be plausible. Especially when sweatshops are “screening” potential employee to ensure that the injustices of the industry are concealed. Thus, boycotting companies that outsource to sweatshops takes jobs away from the poor, which is more harmful than it is helpful. If a sweatshop shuts down causing thousands of people to lose their jobs, their living conditions and suffering may be worse because they have no income whatsoever. Therefore, under those specific circumstances, sweatshops may be justifiable by utilitarian’s because poverty with no job is worse than poverty with a job that is physically and emotionally demanding.