Explanation
In their article, Sweatshops and Respect for Persons, Arnold and Bowie (2003) make an argument about poor physical safety conditions at some companies, most of them located in Asia. The first premise that the authors draw is that safety measures at companies are inadequate in terms of providing proper protection of workers from workplace hazards. Arnold and Bowie (2003) refer to a number of real life examples to substantiate this premise. They mention an incident of 1993, when a fire broke at one of companies in Thailand, resulting in 200 deaths. The authors mention a list of possible workplace hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, repetitive motion injuries, malfunctioning machinery, and exposure to airborne pollutants (Arnold and Bowie, 2003). The second premise of the author’s argument is that providing proper protection of workers from workplace hazards is a moral duty of employers. Namely, Arnold and Bowie (2003) argue, ‘lax health and safety standards violate the moral requirements that employers be concerned with the physical safety of their employees’. The authors also add, ‘A failure to implement appropriate safeguards means that employers are treating their employees as disposable tools rather than as beings with unique dignity’ (Arnold & Bowie, 2003, p. 233). Based on the two premises mentioned above, Arnold and Bowie (2003) draw a conclusion that employers act in a way that is immoral. It is important to note that the authors do not seem to consider controversial premises, which weakens the argument that they present.
Analysis
In order to evaluate the argument made in the article, it is important to pay a closer attention to its premises. Whilst the first premise that safety measures at companies are inadequate in terms of providing proper protection of workers from workplace hazards, is difficult to criticize given the evidence presented by Arnold and Bowie (2003), the authors’ argument is not sound because the second premise is false. The second premise of the author’s argument is that providing proper protection of workers from workplace hazards is a moral duty of employers. This is a very arguable statement. The author seems to build their premise on the basis of deontological ethics that emphasizes the importance of acting in accordance with one’s feeling of duty and responsibility. However, from the point of view of utilitarianism, this premise is false. Specifically, through the lens of the theory, whether an action is moral or immoral should be measured by its consequences, specifically, whether or not it leads to pleasure and reduces the risk of pain. Although physical safety conditions at some companies in the East are indeed dangerous, the likelihood of something bad happening is still low. Regardless of a huge amount of companies located in the East and the Middle East with poor safety conditions, the authors managed to show only a few examples of this risk in fact escalating in human suffering. From this point of view, the potential economic benefits of not introducing the needed changes to the infrastructure of companies might be higher than the risk of harm. From this point of view, the premise that Arnold and Bowie (2003) make is not universal, and thus false, because its truthiness depends on the ethical theory applied. Finally, it is possible to argue that it is foremost the duty of the government to ensure that companies comply with safety measures because workers pay taxes for the government to protect them. Employers, from this perspective, are merely capitalists, whose goal is to grow economically. From this point of view, it is not employees, but the government that acts in a way that is immoral.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Sweatshops and Respect for Persons".
- Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. (2003). Sweatshops and Respect for Persons. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(2), 221-242.
