After going through the documentary ‘Blood, Sweat and T-shirts’ I consider ‘sweatshops’ as an unfavourable term because as per my understanding it is based on the miserable working conditions that are way too dangerous. It can be seen clearly from the documentary that workers work very long hours in dangerous conditions and in return they are given a very low pay. Many big corporations in countries such as United States of America and United Kingdom are considered as great examples as they use sweatshops labour in countries such as Bangladesh, India, China, Vietnam etc. so that the corporations can make their products at a lower price. In order to support themselves and their families financially the factory workers are forced to work longer duration of hours in dangerous working conditions. Kant’s ethical theory is based on three aspects which are means vs ends, universal acceptability and goodwill. In mnemonic terms it can be classified as ‘MUG’. Kant described ‘M’ Means vs ends as rational creatures should always treat other rational creatures as ends in themselves and never as only means to an ends. (Shaw, Barry, Issa, Catley ; Muntean, 2016, p. 65). In other words it can be said that means vs ends focuses on in order to achieve our own goals and objectives we should never use others. It can be seen from the documentary that the corporation’s major objective is profit maximisation and they are willing to go to any extent to achieve it even if it comes at the expense of the factory workers. The corporation’s actions clearly justify that they are using the workers only as means because they are using them unfairly, forcing them to work longer hours in dangerous conditions instead of as an end which requires looking after their good such as a necessity of providing a safer working environment, and also giving them appropriate wages. In all circumstances we should treat others the same way we wish to be treated which represents mankind among ourselves and in others. In order to summarise ‘means vs ends’ human beings should not be treated just as mere commodities to accomplish any corporation’s goals or objectives with no thoughts of their own goals and interests. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative which is defined as a principled command that is necessary universally requires us to act in a manner where we can justify our actions into a universal law. (Shaw, Barry, Issa, Catley ; Muntean, 2016, p. 63). If there is something that needs to be considered a universal law it is always better to ask if all rational beings would accept or not to live as per that law. Similarly in the use of sweatshops everyone has to be considered in making a universal law so even if a stakeholder or a sweatshop in-charge argue that their only interest is the low price for their products and nothing else, but if the roles would have been different, if they were the ones working in those miserable dangerous conditions they would definitely feel differently. Kant would not think about taking away any chance or an opportunity from these people who are working in the factories but instead he would make the system or a law more democratic as well as friendlier.
- Researching apply this to Tesco. I will
- Pakistan trade policies in response to global