Evaluation of Sweatshops Using Kants Deontology and Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Evaluation ​​of sweatshops using Kant’s​​ deontology ​​and​​ utilitarianism. Introduction. Apart from doing business and contributing massively to the growth of the economy, multinational enterprises are also responsible for their employees, partners, and suppliers. In that context, they should: ensure the adherence to local labor laws, treat their employees respectfully without coercing them, pay them fairly and provide minimum safety standards at the work place. In a nutshell, they ought to provide proper work ergonomics for employees. Employees, on the other hand, are tasked with delivering the set targets in their contracts. Utilitarian defines an action that is right as the actions whose consequences are not harmful regardless of after how long they occur. Sometimes the results are immediate, and other times it may take decades to realize them. It insists that people develop true moral outlooks when they widen concerns of other people and not only focus on our benefits. It references the morality of an action based on its results. The theory of deontology studies and explains the nature of responsibility and obligation. The theory states that the best decision and actions are those that maximize utility while at the same time promote equality. Thus, it is important for organizations to find a balance between promoting morals in the workplace and making their profits. To offer protection of employees from exploitation, the ethical theory of utilitarianism identifies these standards. This essay investigates the use of the two theories, utilitarianism and deontology to evaluate the enterprise called Sweatshop. Evaluation of sweatshops using Kant’s deontology and utilitarianism ethically Over past decades, interest in the practical evidence revolving around Sweatshops and their operational strategies has grown. It is an organization that is well known for her low wage business and labor outsourcing. However, there is disagreement on the issue of how far it has exploited morals of workers and if the workers have a role that they play. This essay will investigate how the theories of deontology and utilitarianism affirm or deny the act of exploitation of moral rights of workers by the multinational company. Sweatshop or Sweat Factory has violated the ethical standards in many ways. They provide socially unacceptable working conditions for their worker (Dercon, 2017). They do by under giving the workers difficult and dangerous jobs, paying non-commensurate rates, making workers work long hours for low pay and employing underage persons. They have violated laws in many ways such as not paying for overtime irrespective of laws mandate to pay for overtime. Sweatshop pays its workers low wages in Bangladesh that range from 0.13 US dollars to as high as 2.38 US dollars in other countries such as Costa Rica. The justification for the low wage compensation is maximized utility, prosperity, and self-sufficiency for the workers (Dercon, 2017). The deontological disagrees with this. It gives the reasoning that such organizations, i.e., sweatshops and multinational enterprises tolerate a stringent, narrow commitment of justice to their workers. It argues that even in extreme circumstance the employers have a level of moral and sometimes the legal obligation to workers. Sweatshop or Sweat Factory need to show some respect to their worker's humanity by promoting their access to a threshold of goods necessary for their upkeep. The exploitation by Sweatshop is wrong. And, they need not make morally objectable compensation to their workers in the name of promoting utility. The utilitarian rule suggests the using people to your benefit at their expense is unfair. It deems this as exploitation of people. In order to show the severity of the exploitation, it encourages the exploiters to put themselves in the shoes of those they are exploiting and evaluate if it is fair. According to the theory, as much as more people draw get benefits from the act of exploiting a small number of people, the effect is felt. Therefore sweatshop should improve the wages of its workers to lessen the burden on them. The worker is made to undertake hazardous and problematic tasks that can cause injuries and stress (Greenhouse, 1997).. The company is not considerate of the safety of the workers. They are made to lift heavy loads, and they are not provided with proper safety gear to work. The factories are congested and lack proper working spaces hence increase the chances of injuries and fatalities. Contrary, the owners, and supervisor have good offices and workspaces. The rate at which people take equality for granted is alarming. Utilitarian challenges moral wisdom. Its tradition is to seek to expand the moral concerns in the workplaces on behalf of the exploited individuals against unfairness. These actions show lack of concern for other people’s feelings and wellness. Hence Sweatshop is not a morally upright organization. The factory is naughty for overworking its employees. It exceeds the required number of hours to work and does not pay the workers for the overtime (Greenhouse, 1997). Workers work an average of seventy hours per week, six days a week. Unfortunately, this exceeds the national law requirement of only working for fifty hours per week with pay that is three to seven times higher. In this case, the effort to maximize utility exceeds moral standards and is wrong. Workers may feel the obligation to adhere to the deontic duties as opposed to boycotting work. As much as it is their right to choose to work or not to work overtime they chose the easier way out which is not to resist. Besides, on the defense of the employees, both critics recognize that competitive restriction exists. However, some other cases, have put a limitation to an employer to compensate at the higher level with no externalities that are negative. In Indonesia, cases of physical and verbal abuse are constantly reported. Workers have sited that supervisors repeatedly throw objects at them, slaps or kicks them verbally abuses by calling them names such as dogs and pigs. Theoretically, the need to respect human rights is directly associated with deontology. Such abuse is a structural injustice that limits employees. The justice obligations rise among people by merely being united under a common constitution. The obligation of justice to others, therefore, does not originates from the fact that people belong together. Precisely the fact that they coexist together in a system of independent processes of collaboration and competition. They both seek to benefit and target to realize their goals. In this case, the worker cooperates with the firm aiming to get their daily bread while the employer seeks to maximize profits. Hence the conflicts that result in social injustices. Employers choose to harm the employees through violating their rights and mistreating them to benefit themselves. The Sweatshop companies claim to have a culture of non-charity. This is to mean that they market and make profits out sales of their products but choose not to give back to the communities or employees. In short, they comfortably maximize their revenues and have no regard at all for the well-being of sweatshop laborers. The practice contradicts with the practical moral imperative by Kant’s which asserts that it is morally right to treat human beings as ends in themselves and not merely as a means. This has angered many. There is no human being that is pleased with such kind of harsh working conditions, especially in the developed countries. Consequently, movements to boycott Sweatshops have become common in the past decade (Greenhouse, 1997). The boycott called for the cooperation from big corporations to join the resistance to Sweatshops. People demanded that the large businesses should cease buying of goods from Sweatshops because they are products of extraneous, dangerous, underage and under-paid labor. However, some people support that the opposite strategy can work too. If people purchase from the organization more, it can use the profit to increase the pay of the workers. Hence improve their confidence in the organization due to better conditions. Deontology poses a question and inquires if is permissible to jeopardize one person in order to avoid endangering many others. Majority of deontologists argue it is not. Further, they explain that it is because we are all held responsible for what we do rather than what we prevent from happening. In concludes that we are not morally allowed to execute morally wrong actions in pursuit of increasing the welfare and autonomy. Thus, it condemns social injustices in the workplace by employees so that they can make a living for themselves. Conclusion. According to Kant deontology, Sweatshops violate the basic principles of human beings. The managers and owners of the factories do not treat their employees as they are supposed to. They treat them as a tool for making more money. Employees are forced to work as they have no other means of making ends meet. This has been witnessed in this research. This paper fully supports Kant`s deontology as opposed to Utilitarianism which depicts that sweatshops increase happiness of the employees. It is an unfortunate and dismaying situation for quite a high percentages of people to live in poverty yet they are employed. It is unfair that a huge number of citizens go to work for a multi-national that makes reasonable profits only for them to make peanuts out of it. It shows desperation, and it is a sad reality. The most effective way to liberate them is to educate them and enlighten them so that they know their worth. Sweatshops can be challenged to respect the moral and legal rights of people. Perhaps this will dare them to make changes so that they show better appreciation to employees so that they can make their lives and that of their better off. Thankfully, the few awareness campaigns that have been done in the recent years has enlightened some of the workers. It is clear that most of them prefer to support themselves and their families than not be exploited. There are hope and encouragement that the structural injustices that influence corporations to impose morally unacceptable wages and compensation will fade away. Since the consumers are also aware of the oppressive of workers that produce the products they buy, they may agree to pay more for the Sweatshop products. This will, in turn, allow for the increment of employees benefits and lower social injustices in the work places. References Dercon, C. B. (2017, April 27). Everything We Knew About Sweatshops Was Wrong. Retrieved November 14, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/opinion/do-sweatshops-lift-workers-out-of-poverty.html Greenhouse, S. (1997, November 07). Nike Shoe Plant in Vietnam Is Called Unsafe for Workers. Retrieved November 14, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/08/business/nike-shoe-plant-in-vietnam-is-called-unsafe-for-workers.html Read More