|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on Apr 29, 2013 9:08:09 GMT -5
Several years ago, LA had Jim Keady come and talk about Nike sweatshops during Justice and Peace Week. Here is a video of his:
Loyola Academy uses Nike products. Is this morally acceptable or are we hypocritically participating in evil?
|
|
|
|
Post by jenniferr on Apr 30, 2013 8:48:25 GMT -5
I think that it is not morally wrong to buy products that come from sweatshops, as long as we do not know that they are coming from sweatshops. If someone is wearing Nike shoes that does not make them a bad person. But, if we can avoid supporting those companies that make products from sweatshops that would be ideal and would be a good decision. Ultimately, it is the corporations fault, not the consumer, especially if the consumer is unaware.
|
|
|
|
Post by basiafolga on Apr 30, 2013 18:54:06 GMT -5
There is definitely a moral dilemma regarding this topic. It is immoral that the sweatshop workers receive so little benefits and in the conditions they work in. However, this wage allows them to survive. So the dilemma goes like this, "Should we support sweatshops if we are aware of the conditions, or boycott the products causing the workers to starve?" Both are conflicting viewpoints, hurting one party while benefiting the other. I do not want to sound mean or egoistic but I think we should support the sweatshops solely because then the workers receive pay. Without this pay, the workers will die, and I do not want to feel guilty because I did not buy the product. Conclusively, I hope the corporations running these sweatshops consider the health of their workers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on May 2, 2013 12:42:50 GMT -5
I think that it is not morally wrong to buy products that come from sweatshops, as long as we do not know that they are coming from sweatshops. Jennifer, how much of a moral obligation do you think we have to find out whether the companies we buy from are acting morally? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on May 2, 2013 12:44:13 GMT -5
I hope the corporations running these sweatshops consider the health of their workers. Basia, what responsibility do we have as consumers of Nike products to make sure that they are "consider[ing]" the health of their workers? |
|
|
|
Post by felicityfitz on May 5, 2013 18:13:08 GMT -5
I agree with jenniferr, but I think it's important that a consumer takes responsibility in finding out if what they are buying was made in sweatshops. Consumers provide support when they purchase from businesses and its our responsibility to make sure we agree with what we are ultimately supporting.
|
|
|
|
Post by tkev317 on May 5, 2013 20:34:24 GMT -5
i agree with basia that we should support the sweatshops, i recall that the movie we watched in class stated that companies like nike were viewed as a "Godsend" in poorer countries. Companies like nike provide jobs for the natives and actually improve their local economy. The workers know of the work conditions and willingly accept them, therefore we should support sweatshops.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamreckamp on May 5, 2013 21:48:51 GMT -5
I also agree with Basia supporting sweatshops can actually save the lives of people. Because there are so many people in need of work they settle for very small wages. As Mr. Daniels said one group will agree to work for $2.00 an hour then the other will agree to work $1.50 an hour. They negotiate so low that they reach a wage that they can barely survive on. However at least those people are employed and given a wage to live on.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamreckamp on May 5, 2013 22:25:36 GMT -5
Also to go along with Mr. Daniels reply message to Basia, we do have a responsibility to make sure that companies consider the health of their workers. Businesses are responsible for the conditions that they put their workers in. However consumers keep businesses so they are also responsible for the heath of the workers. Therefore consumers almost have an indirect responsibility to the businesses' workers.
|
|
|
|
Post by drewcerney on May 5, 2013 22:32:45 GMT -5
Obviously Nike doesnt advertise that they use sweatshops but my point of view is if its not American there is most likely some sort of cheap labor or sweatshop going on so i like to buy american. But the morality question i feel is wrong because why should consumers not buy a product because of how its made.
|
|
|
|
Post by isabeller on May 6, 2013 6:54:48 GMT -5
Drew consumers should not buy a product for how it's made for exactly that reason, how it is manufactured. Of course it is easier to buy the cheapest product but when someone puts some thought about what happened to the people who made that product is it even worth it? No one deserves to get payed nothing for work and if we buy those products were supporting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mconsidine on May 6, 2013 13:06:58 GMT -5
I agree with isabelle, because we are supporting the immoral acts of sweatshops by buying their products, even though they are often the cheapest. Sometimes it is hard to know if they come from sweatshops, but if consumers know, they should not support them. We can read the labels from where products came from, and determine if we should buy them from that. For example, my mom likes to only buy things made in the US. I'm not saying that things made in the US always treat their workers with proper respect, but it is less likely than buying them in other countries where people agree to get paid 5 cents an hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by basiafolga on May 6, 2013 16:51:18 GMT -5
As consumers, we have a responsibility regarding the health of the sweatshop workers. we can 'spread the word' about these sweatshop workers and their health. Before junior year, I did not know that LA purchased clothes from sweatshops. Thanks to spreading the word, I found out. We have the responsibility of informing those around us where their clothes come from, and the corporations have the responsibility of informing the consumers. If you think about it, without the consumers, the workers would not have anything to live off of and the companies would go bankrupt. I would rather pay more for a product, ensuring the workers decent pay, than having them be cheaper. I'd rather know my money is going for good use instead of the CEOs pocket.
|
|
eryks
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by eryks on May 6, 2013 17:48:50 GMT -5
I mainly have to touch on will reckamps point... These sweat shops are almost essential to these people's lives. I don't think the main problem in society are the wages that they are subject to earning, but rather the conditions they are exposed to within the sweatshop themselves. In no way do I support the idea of sweatshops, but there are businesses out there that do want to make as much money as possible, and unfortunately, Loyola is one of those businesses/ consumers
|
|
|
|
Post by basiafolga on May 6, 2013 20:56:47 GMT -5
I think Will and Eryk bring up excellent points. However, I think that the poor conditions the workers face everyday and their minimal salaries both contribute to the main problem. The workers, if payed enough so they could sustain their family, would not mind the working conditions that much. They would be using their work as a means to an end in that the end is a healthy family and a good life.
|
|
