Political Theory Home Exam Are sweatshops morally defensible? Discuss the view of sweatshops that follows from Marx and Engel’s critique of capitalism as well as from Nozick’s libertarianism. Discuss the relevance of both views for our moral assessment of sweatshops. Also discuss if the low wages in sweatshops can be justified on Rawlsian terms – as an inequality that over time will benefit the least well off. Sweatshop is a workplace for workers suffering from long hours of work, low wages, and poor working conditions. Sweatshop's ethical and moral impact has been the subject of much debate. From a moral point of view, the labor sweatshop is difficult to defend. Workers often receive very low wages, work long hours, and are affected by …show more content…
Overall, when workers are exposed to exploitative and abusive conditions, they can provide employment opportunities for workers, but it is difficult to ignore the moral concerns raised by the prevalence of labor exploitation. Instead, efforts should be made to ensure that workers are treated fairly and with dignity, and access to quality wages, safe working conditions, and other basic rights. Ultimately, the solution to the problems in the labor field may lie in finding ways to improve working conditions and wages rather than simply accepting the status …show more content…
It is suggested that low wages for workers may be justified if they contribute to the overall improvement of the least affluent members of society. According to this view, if they provide jobs and income to people who would not have had other opportunities, and the profits they produce are used to improve the welfare of the most disadvantaged members of society, they can be justified. Rawls will also argue that workers should provide safe working conditions and fair wages, and that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to work. From Rawls' point of view, one argument against Sweetshop is that they perpetuate the cycle of poverty and exploitation. Sweatshop may offer jobs to the poorest, but they also perpetuate a system in which such workers are poor and have no chance of improving their fate in life. This could violate Rawls' principle of justice by failing to provide a fair distribution of resources over