Summary Of Sweatshops Choice And Exploitation By Zwolinski

In his article “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation” Matt Zwolinski attempts to tackle the problem of the morality of sweatshops, and whether or not third parties or even the actors who create the conditions, should attempt to intervene on behalf of the workers. Zwolinski’s argument is that it is not right for people to take away the option of working in a sweatshop, and that in doing so they are impeding on an individual’s free choice, and maybe even harming them. The main distinction that Zwolinski makes is that choice is something that is sacred, and should not be impeded upon by outside actors. This is showcased Zwolinski writes, “Nevertheless, the fact that they choose to work in sweatshops is morally significant. Taken seriously, workers' consent to the conditions of their labor should lead us to abandon certain moral objections to sweatshops, and perhaps even to view them as, on net, a good thing.” (Zwolinski, 689). He supports his argument of the importance of free choice by using a number of different tactics including hypothetical thought exercises and various quotes from other articles which spoke about the effects of regulation business. Throughout the article there were multiple points which helped illuminate Zwolinski’s argument as well as multiple points which muddle the argument a bit.

The main key for me was when he explained how his two theories of choice made non-interference the preferred moral decision.

He sums up his discussion of choice in the following passage.
The proper response to an autonomy-exercising choice is one of respect, and this respect seems to counsel non-interference with the agent's choice even if we believe the consequences of interfering would be superior for the agent. Preference-evincing choices often give us reason for non-interference as well, but only because we think the consequences of doing so will be better in some respect for the agent. (Zwolinski,

694).
From what I gathered from this section Zwolinski believes that choice is an extremely important right for an individual. It is so important that two theories support it. If you believe in individual autonomy then an individual exercising choice must be respected, because of the nature of choice itself. He also uses preference-evincing theory, which shows that the individual will choose the best possible choice for them, and our interference may cause harm rather than good. He shows this by explaining that often time the choice to work in a sweatshop is better compared to the alternatives of prostitution, begging, or drugs. When faced with poverty the choices may not be the best, but if outsiders interfere with it through boycotts or other means they take away an individual’s best option. For me this was an extremely interesting argument, which I personally had not thought about. However, the more I thought about the individual power of choice, and how if these people had a better option they would be doing that instead. That does not mean I agreed that nothing should be done, but it did help me understand why oftentimes you have to look at the other side of the situation before you choose the course of action. If you did not do this one would just think of course it is ok to boycott companies that have terrible working conditions, but like Zwolinski says with his discussion of choice that view can be more harmful than was originally intended.
While my key was about Zwolinski’s discussion of choice, and the adverse effects that could occur when outside actors attempt to disrupt an individual’s freedom of choice; the lock for me was about why industry wide standards would not be a good solution to the issue of sweatshops. In the passage he writes,
“And any shift from voluntary codes to talk of industry-wide standards or, even more broadly, to global human rights to certain standards, risks crowding out businesses that fall short of those standards even if the benefits they provide to their workers are considerable.” (Zwolinski, 713).
When Zwolinski explores possible approaches to better the Sweatshop conditions he says That MNE’s have reason to act, but he then discredits it by basically saying that it would be bad for business and could therefore put the Sweatshop workers in danger of losing their free choice, and their chance to escape poverty through the best way they could. This however, was a lock for me because I feel as though if universal standards were put in place by businesses around the world there would not be risk for one company to undersell you by refusing to meet higher standards. This lock has become a bit less obstructive after learning that Zwolinski is a Libertarian. His Libertarianism would make it highly unlikely that he would support global regulations, and would probably think they would still kill off business, and therefore again have an adverse effect on the, would be sweatshop workers. I believe the reason for the disconnect, and why this was a lock for me, is mostly because I am used to viewing the world through a more globalized and ideal perspective than Zwolinski. Though I eventually, after class, was able to understand Zwolinski’s perspective during my reading this part really impeded my ability to make sense of why Zwolinski thought that Sweatshops were the only viable option.
Though I do not wholeheartedly agree with Zwolinski’s entire argument his defense of free choice was very interesting, and helped open up different perspectives which I had not thought of before. I still believe we should strive to improve the working conditions and wages of sweatshop workers, but this article has made me rethink how we as a Race could go about doing that in a way which did not inadvertently harm others. So far, in my opinion, this has been the most interesting article mostly because the locks I encountered were not lock because of jargon, but rather frame of mind.