Posted by SR
on March 9, 2009, 4:35 pm
128.54.155.37
I found Maitland's argument, concerning the ethics behind sweatshop conditions, surprisingly compelling. The largest fallacy I could find in his argument is that he assumes that if wages/ conditions are improved, then the number of jobs the company can afford will decrease. However, the reality of the matter may actually be that companies can raise the quality of the working conditions and still keep the same number of jobs, if they accept a slight decrease in profit. I was wondering if anyone else had spotted other, more serious issues with Maitland's defense of sweat shops.
92
Message Thread:
« Back to thread