An examination of the conditions in sweatshops
First, it does not adequately explain why there exists a special obligation between sweatshop owners and sweatshop workers.
Sweatshop classroom simulation
Since all would be similarly situated and no one would be able to design a contract or agreement to favor his or her particular condition, the distribution of the gains of social cooperation between them would be fair. There are strong grounds to believe that it does not. Rather, we are interested in determining what a fair wage for sweatshop workers would be in an unjust world like our own. What might such a criterion of fair distribution be? Or, to put the point another way, how can it be morally worse to exploit the global poor than to not hire them at all, when exploitation is voluntary and makes them better off? The first reason is that equal division ED seems to best express the idea that the lives of sweatshop owners and sweatshop workers are of equal moral value or worth. To see why, recall that the choice of principles in the original position is fundamentally individualistic. By way of analogy, consider health care. Today there can be no doubt about which approach worked better.
From the fact that US citizens have, say, a right to a minimally decent level of health care it most certainly does not follow that employers should be the only ones to provide them with it.
My discussion proceeds in three steps. Many of us sympathize.
From the fact that US citizens have, say, a right to a minimally decent level of health care it most certainly does not follow that employers should be the only ones to provide them with it. Rather, Snyder must show, in addition, that B depends on A and A alone. With these points as background, we are now in a position to answer the question with which we began. There are at least two reasons for doing so. From this it follows that the bargaining range will be between 10 and 20 and the social surplus will be To earn income, people sell productive resources. Therefore, what ultimately matters is that the balance of reasons favors one alternative over the other. But what determines the reservation price of each party?
The basic idea, on this view, is that when a group of individuals voluntarily enter into a cooperative arrangement for mutual advantage, they have an obligation to ensure that the benefits and burdens of that arrangement are distributed in a way that is fair. The fundamental problem, according to its critics, is that, although HCMP eliminates certain sources of unfairness between sweatshop owners and sweatshop workers, that is, monopoly power or asymmetries in information, it completely ignores the fact that the background structure in which market participants interact might itself be unjust.
An examination of the conditions in sweatshops
Consider the argument against HCMP first. Standard Students will understand that: Income for most people is determined by the market value of the productive resources they sell. For that reason, we model the members of a cooperative relationship as having equal conditional claims to a certain form of benefit, for example, the gains produced by their combined efforts. To see why, let us suppose that B is dependent on A in exactly the way that Snyder assumes. In addition, one must explain why sweatshop owners in particular have an obligation to pay sweatshop workers a higher one. In answering this question, it is important to recognize that not only is there sharp disagreement in the philosophical literature over how to define a fair wage, but many also believe that it is virtually impossible to establish a general principle of fair distribution in this domain. But when I talk to a young Vietnamese woman, Tsi-Chi, at the factory, it is not the wages she is most happy about.
Indeed, the denial of such a claim would imply absurdly that virtually no one is exploited in a developed country like our own. Figure 1 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint The question thus arises as to whether HCMP provides the most morally compelling account of what a fair wage looks like.
To the contrary, it seems that the most we can say is that A has an obligation to do his fair share in that regard. The question nevertheless arises as to whether such a relationship is unique or whether B stands in a relationship of dependence with other individuals as well.
I will, therefore, restrict my discussion to cases where sweatshop workers both consent to and stand to benefit from economic interaction, yet appear to be exploited nevertheless. But what exactly does that mean?
based on 12 review