Needs Exploitation

Author(s): Jeremy C. Snyder

Source: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Aug., 2008), pp. 389-405
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284251
Accessed: 04-10-2016 12:18 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethical Theory and Moral
Practice

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Ethic Theory Moral Prac (2008) 1 1:389-405

DOI 10.1007/s 10677-008-9 11 5-9

Needs Exploitation
Jeremy C. Snyder

Accepted: 8 April 2008 /Published online: 9 May 2008

Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Sweatshop labor is often cited as an example of the worst and most pervasive form
of exploitation today, yet understanding what is meant by the charge has proven surprisingly

difficult for philosophers. I develop an account of what I call "Needs Exploitation," grounded

in a specification of the duty of beneficence. In the case of sweatshop labor, I argue that
employers face a duty to extend to employees a wage sufficient to meet their basic needs. This

duty is limited by the degree of the employees' dependence on the employer for basic needs

and a reasonability standard where the employer may remain within a range of well-being
between deficiency and luxury.

Keywords Exploitation Sweatshop labor

1 Introduction

Sweatshop labor is often held up as an example of exploitation. In its most troubling forms,

sweatshop labor can include forced (Varley 1998; Bernsetin 2000) and child (Lopez-Calva
2001) labor, sexual abuse (Varley 1998), and withholding of wages (Bearak 2001). The
wrongfulness of these abuses is easy to grasp, involving as they do coercion, manipulation,
and outright harm to workers. But the moral status of the long hours and low wages of
sweatshop labor apart from these wrongs has proven more difficult for philosophers to
grasp.

The buying power of large, Western retailers, in conjunction with local economic
conditions, keep the wage levels of sweatshop workers low. The jobs that are available are

monotonous, dehumanizing, and often dangerous. Take, for example, the experience of
Wang Chenghua, a worker in a box factory in China:
Wang Chenghua learned to work like a metronome. He slipped strips of metal under a
mechanical hammer with his right hand, then swept molded parts into a pile with his
left. He did this once a second for a 10-hour shift, minus a half-hour lunch.... "The
J. C. Snyder (El)
Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall 11311, 8888 University Drive,
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
e-mail: jeremycsnyder@sfu.ca

Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

390

J.C.

Snyder

work
is
so
one
recent

you
In

let

Mr.

boring
afterno

your

min

Wang's

case

surrounding

him

earn

cents

Yet

at

best

would-be

lives

that

re

work

these

purchasing

job

good

presumably
spur
g
argument
is
simpl
best
alternative.
To
seems
make
p.

2).

horrible,
bu
someone
bet

By

this

logic,

low
wages
are
dan
poverty
should
ca
factories

in

Africa

poverty
far
more
There
seems
to
be

labor

and

broad
the

appreciat

charges

benefit

conferred

by

dehumanizing

to

avoid

labor

rela

thes

form

certain

still

ha

of
In
this
article,
I
a
claim
that
sweatsh
the

is

that

and

one

interactions

specification

goal

of

access

and

of

to

th

th

wage
akin
to
a
'livi
Needs
Exploitation
disregarding

short

meet.
As
I
develop
nonideal
condition
demand
to
mainta
impractical.
In
my
minimum
that
fa
conditions.

Some
mutually
be
actions
that
fall
sh

will

use

the

term

'

proponents
and
criti
'sweatshop'
labor
rath
2

See

also

Kristoff

& Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

an

Needs

exploitation

39

section
of
this
article,
I
set
character
of
the
moral
wro

sections

to

describe

which
morally
to
an
objection

Sweatshop

Needs

nonideal
con
against
my

Labor

and

th

Many

philosophers
have
ref
whether
their
insights
ar

particular,

These

accounts

accounts

voluntariness

One

Meyers,

be

of

common

particularly

wrong

(2004,
party

p.

Meyers,

as

act

co

shie

unfair

example,

from

324).

may

an

because

benefiting

explo

understandin

the

for

of

serve

In

it

involv

their

misf

some

demand

most

demanding

dist

gives

too

case

any

mu

Meyers
draws
an
analogy
b
multi-national
enterprises
(

demanding

that

be

allow

example),
MNEs
exploit
the
low
wages.
The
analogy
betw
rescue;
MNEs
do
not
have
a

paying

employment.

advantage

of

their

Rathe

desperate

short,

it
is
exploitation,
no
(which
Meyers
does
not
p
hours
worked
excessively
h
While
Meyers
is
able
to
gi
when
compared
to
the
ben
need

to

be

said

about

the

st

evident
why
disproportiona
consider
that
well-off
perso

raising
the
same
concerns
will
often
benefit
disprop
measures.
The
stranded
wom
a
sexual
act
preformed
on

3
Consider
that
Tim
Tycoon
migh
cannot
be
bothered
to
take
the
t
exchange,
it
does
not
seem
that
h
are
said
to
be
exploited.
This
case
and
not
the
fairness
of
the
exch

) Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

392

J.C.

that

she

Snyder

values

gratification.

that

these

he

Simil

worker

might
mean
the
d
We
can
consider
a

order

to

see
is

if
the
found

unfairness

advantage

of
a
bre
writes
that

(1996)

functioning

ideally

price
that
a
unpressured
hypothetical
the

term,

wellbuye
mark

"the

com

advantage
of
part
vulnerabilities
in
competitive
mar
competitive
pric
requirement
'fairn
The

trouble

with

low
wages
will
ver
labor
supply
and
d
labor
even
in
the

simply
be
a
matt
levels
in
a
fair
m
background
or
his
history
of
colonia
in
the
Developing
unpressured"
part
of

the

market

in

one
party
without
miss
these
backgr
levels
that
fall
bel

This
concern
however.
The
vulnerability
possible.

for

We

nee
str
of

might

removing

all
w
competitive
mark
special
vulnerabi
approaches
to
fai
market,
this
wide
world,
by
some
s
sweatshop
worke
resources
than
the
price'

rather

David

Miller

than

(1987)

Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Needs

exploitation

Leaving
unequal

this

aside

the

treatment

approach

stands

in

imagine
largely

393

demands

danger

away

critica
should

of

all

of

unskilled,

deman

the

and

gl

gen

the

price
that
would
be
r
he
will
encounter
First,
it
isn't
entirely
c
sweatshop
workers
ripe
previously
have
lived
the
develop
other,
more
mark
situation
are
likely
to
be
world,
international
trad
women
just
to
name
a
fe
conditions
all
have
subtle
exactly
their
effects
are.
strong
epistemological
de
leading
to
their
employe
ditions
their
employees
co
hypothetical
demands
in
o
Second,
even
if
employer
process

their

workers

extremely

particularly

strong.

If

par

resources
that,
arguably,
she
would
be
willing
to
e

anything
less
than
an
ex
conditions.
These
very
hi
unfair
world
in
which
we
make
some
kinds
of
intera

all

or

most

immoral

practical

while

The

problem

the

fact

with

that

conditions

placing

the

make

the

int
an

gene

interacti

it

import

create,
even
if
they
are
p
Another
common
account
respect

for

persons,

exploitation'

given

rathe

its

emp
dignity.
Under
this
view
determining
when
an
int

5
It
is
for
this
reason
that
Wer
market
price.
As
he
puts
it,
"ci
that
will
produce
mutual
gains.
less
well
than
others
by
the
app
party
to
repair
those
backgrou

1996, p. 234).
4y Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

394

J.C.

Snyder

constrained
to

difficult
terms

of

to
see

the

star
how

contr

'option'
of
exit
and
Onora
O'Neill
(1985
where

in

an

they

fail

economic

to

sys

deceptive
maxims,
we
look
to
the
max

of
to

capitalist
emplo
fail
to
treat
th
(1985,
p.
274).
The
fully
takes
advant
Helpful
as
the
mo
problematic.
O'Neil
the
moral
import
meaningfully
volu
If,
instead,
we
pu
classical
notion
th
employer's
ends,
much
to
illuminate
to
workers
or
a
fa
strong

duties

to

th

Furthermore,
as
towards
absolutism
of
the
duties
of
em
Kantian

for

grounds

workers

th

that

meet

their
food
an
minimal
education
where
doing
anyth
ends in themselves.

But a strict requirement of this kind gives credence to the moral libertarian's charge that

those condemning sweatshop labor insufficiently stress the benefits created by these jobs,

and the costs that can accompany mandating a living wage. Imagine a sweatshop case
where granting a living wage will hamper the development of the local community over the

long term by reducing its comparative advantage in labor costs. Arnold and Bowie would
sanction proceeding with the employment at a living wage level despite the negative effect

that employment will have on the other members of the local community. These indirect
consequences, though foreseeable, they maintain, are not the responsibility of the employer
and thus should not affect the permissibility of the interaction. If the employer is bothered

by the consequences of her action and wishes to pursue interactions that will not have these
effects, she must abandon any hope of employing workers in the developing community, or

6 Calculating a living wage is difficult, but not impossible. The Workers Rights Consortium (2008), for

example, has developed country specific living wage calculations, including access to basic levels of
nutrition, housing, energy, clothing, health care, education, potable water, child care, transportation, and
savings.
7 Ruth Sample (2003) uses this language in her account of exploitation.

Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Needs
at

exploitation

least

wishes

to

so

want

in

to

argue

sweatshop

approaches.
sort

of

duties

claim

of

considered
employers

The

we

goal

all

notion

at

all,

that

wide

un

prog

if

roots

on

to

we

tu

while

variety

us;

be

over

face

we

face

broad

and

when

abov

settin

Exploitation
of

should
of

capable

mann

enter

non-interference.

constraints,

Needs

to

labor

philosophical

in

voluntarily

no
interaction
interaction.

an

doing

395

of

conception
well-being,

decent

have

minim

access

distinctly

forming
of

the

hum

and

good

including,

lif

to

subordination.
In
general,
we
understand
humans
as

endorse

ends
beyond
thos
fail
to
respec
While
moral
libertarians
w
the
goal
of
a
decent
minim
Actions

some

that

form

of

imperfect

What
are
the
basic
needs
disagreement
in
the
detail
psychological
center

of

characteristi

rational,

human
of
control.
Without
the
g
person
is
born
can
constra

[m]ight
be
severely
confi
disease,
overpopulation,
an
fault,
when
one
has
to
lab

to
live
as
a
rational
person
rational,
of
course;
but
it
make.
Harsh
conditions
a

cannot
do
philosophy
if
o
live
an
ideally
rational
lif
conformist
attitudes,
and
even
though
one
may
be

communal
values
are
lost
effectively
closed
(1991,
& Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

396

J.C.

Snyder

Human

persons

constrain
we

might

needs

by

their
be

op

born

virtue

Ordinarily,

the

of

ba

decent

minimum
f
individuals
will
h

resources

toward

use
with
a
particu
beneficence,
I
wan
Consider
Bill,
a
b
the

the

poor

of

the

conditions

World.

Bill's

wo

of

relati

life
of
great
luxu
sistently
using
th
employees'
wages
these

particular

pe

poor
may
depend
way
that
privilege

Bill,

in

short,

employees.
The perfect form of the duty of beneficence relies, I am claiming, on connections to
particular others through our roles and relationships, where a general disregard for the
needs of humanity becomes a disregard for the needs of particular others. This disregard
can take the form of a use of another as a mere means, where a particular person's needs are

disregarded in preference to an overriding concern with the benefit to oneself that can be
derived from one's interaction with her. In this way, the general duty to support the basic
needs of others becomes more concrete through a process of specification, such that the
once general duty is now owed, with specific content, to particular others.
In the case of employment relationships, in short, employers do not simply have an
imperfect duty to help some of their employees to achieve a decent minimum some of the
time; rather, employers are required to cede as much of their benefit from the interaction to

their employees as is reasonably possible toward the end of the employees achieving a
decent minimum standard of living.

8 For some well developed lists of basic needs, goods, or capabilities see, for example, Martha Nussbaum
(2000) and Madison Powers and Ruth Faden (2006). Two methods of justifying a list of basic needs are
dominant in the literature. First, our basic needs might be a matter of objective truth, based on the nature of
human beings. Barbara Herman, for example, discusses 'true needs' in Kant's work, based on the centrality

of rationality to humans. As she puts it, "a person's true needs are those which must be met if he is to
function (or continue to function) as a rational, end-seeking agent..." (1984, p. 597). Second, the content of
our basic needs might be established through a consensus among people with differing conceptions of the
good life. Martha Nussbaum (2000), for example, justifies her capabilities list through an overlapping
consensus and Nancy Fraser (1989) stresses the importance of dialogue for resolving conflict regarding
needs. Thomas Scanlon (1975) discusses both justifications for determining the urgency or importance of
preferences. In terms of the content of a list of dimensions of and needs for well-being, it is not clear that
these two approaches will differ greatly, and I am agnostic as to which mechanism should be used. For
general discussion of the moral demands created by basic needs, see Gillian Brock (1998), Garrett Thomson
(1987), and Soran Reader (2005).

Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

see

Needs
But

exploitation

what

face?

If

every

does

the

basic

bus

an

The

the

to

interaction

under

an

that

voucher

from

"reasonably

duty

need

apparently,
a

397

co

employ

provide

neighbor

must

benef

relationship.

first

measure

releva

prospective
dependence
of
that
A
is
the
sole
means
of
would

this

expect
to
receive
all
support,
these
needs

part

by

Carl

might

the

full-time
Carl

the

kind

and

provide

employer

is
a
part-time
state
meets
all

specification

of

durat

for

all

where

employ

the

basic

genera

The
degree
to
which
this
s
will
be
determined
by
th
person
There

on
another.
is
a
wide
literature

of
dependence
and
specif
focuses
on
'real
connectio

history,
practices
and
sh
projects.
The
ethics
of
car
those
present
in
our
mora
to
others
with
whom
I
sta
within

practice

(1999,

p.

relationships

and

practices,

relationships

and

responsibi

creates

the

concrete

recog

standing
as
a
moral
subject
Without
ignoring
the
sig

areas

of

consensus
among
and
dependenc

connections

relationships.
greater

This

point

demands

to

Specifically,

demands
on

create

expected

typically

one's

be

than

demands

met

created

why

employers

lighter
to

on

explains

throug

between

deeply
intimate
and
ongoi
Whereas
an
employer
nee

and
needs
of
her
employe
demands
for
support.
Con
specification
of
the
duty
o
Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

398
It
by
to

J.C.

is

Snyder

also

role
rely

importan

norms,
on

my

and

wife

to

do
so;
such
norm
she
would
not
for
determining
w
normatively
adjust
But
even
if
we
con
based
on
the
emplo

her,

meeting

this

goal

in

marketplace
may
n
able
to
do
so
only
below
their
duty

in

levels
own

of

of

flo

well-bei

employers

ceding

the

gain

permitted
to
retain
that
A
cede
benefi

given
down

dimension
of
to
that
thres

between
a
deficit,
that
would
fu
Put
another
way,
distinction
between
gain

point

will
mark
th
as
a
luxury
is,
of
philosophical
camp
metaphysical
natur

the
good
life,
and
t
And
as
with
claims

debate

of
category

instances.

details,
i
is
a
key
At

some

into
the
category
attaining
their
bas
equals.
Below
this
t
within
point

the

of

range

poverty,

value
of
flourishin
human
life,
a
life
live
the

and
what
means
to

such

life

to
va
live
s

for

all.9

9
As
Barbara
Herman
that
they
won't
go
on
life,
one
cannot
appre
judgments
about
eithe

Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Needs

exploitation

concern

wallow
might

that

in

399

many

employ

conditions

reasonably

fit

of

withi

less

likely
to
do
so.10
While
I
have
used
examp
simplify
my
discussion,
i
between
armies
of
employ
structures.

the

Organizational
duration
and
frequenc

wages

and

dependency
members

of

determine
will
the

coincide

MNE.11

structure
of
a
very
large
conditions
of
employees.
E

the

whole.12

importance

of

the

An additional worry created by this diffusion of connections is that the wealth created by

MNEs will be diffused as well. If so, the profits of publicly owned MNEs will be spread
amongst a myriad of managers, employees, and stock owners, many or most of whom will
fall below the threshold point of luxury. Individuals that do not achieve luxurious wealth
will not have a perfect duty of beneficence to aid the MNE's workers, and therefore would
not count as exploiting them on my account. Meanwhile, the relatively few beneficiaries of
privately owned companies would be more likely to face the requirement of a perfect duty
of beneficence given the concentration of wealth in fewer hands. Large, publicly held
MNEs would therefore have an advantage over single-owner companies that seek to avoid
exploiting their workers as the MNEs would have to direct a lower proportion of their
profits to workers in order to avoid charges of exploitation. This advantage would allow
non-exploitative MNEs to displace privately held companies, resulting in lower, though still
non-exploitative wages, for workers.13
There are several possible responses to this concern. First, while smaller stockholders
and middle managers in MNEs may not break the barrier into luxury, the duty not to exploit

workers is not a complete description of the moral duties of these individuals. Individuals

who benefit from unjust social institutions may have a forward-looking, 'political'
responsibility to reform these institutions.14 Even managers and stockholders who do not

10 Of course, the purchase of gold-plated sinks may be important to the flourishing of the manufacturers of
these sinks and their employees. One can imagine cases where the purchase of luxuries might be justified as
the best means of pursuing the goal of minimal flourishing for all. A 'trickle-down' justification of luxuries,

however, would depend on the dubious claim that purchasing these goods is a more efficient means of
promoting flourishing than direct benefits to one's own employees or indirect giving, such as a donation to a
need-based scholarship fund.

11 Notable exceptions will include members of the boards of MNEs and large shareholders.
12 Shareholder responsibility movements have focused on harnessing the power of small investors to force
votes on resolutions requiring more socially responsible conduct from recalcitrant MNE boards. See, for
example, G. Jeffrey MacDonald (2006).
13 My thanks to an anonymous reviewer for raising this objection.

14 Iris Young (2004) argues that the responsibility to bring about just social institutions is determined by
factors of connection, power, and privilege. If so, the many individuals connected to MNEs will all have a
responsibility to bring about just institutions in the future.

& Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

400

J.C.

cross

and

Snyder

the

line

global

into

trade

flourishing

human

Second,
even
thou
of
people,
they
w
therefore,

they

wi

greater
diffusion
individuals
crossin
MNEs
with
the
g
shareholders
and
proportions
of
p
distinction
betwe
publicly
held
MN
there

is

little

beneficence
most

of

reas

direct

powerful

me

beneficence

ma

Exploitation

in

In

the
preceding
s
the
cost
of
subsist

of

low-end

endemic,

there

is

widge

and

the

great

demand
in
the
employees
a
livi

market
forces
di
level
consistent
w
produces
widgets
above
all
else.
Mor
a
similar
labor
po
profit
in
this
fie
viability
of
Debb
the
whims
of
les
actions.
She
sighs
wages.

In this case, I want to argue, offering a living wage is not required. The reasonability
standard, that is, is also governed by practical limitations on A's enterprise, such as com-

petitiveness. Since a business may not be able to offer the morally ideal wage to its
employees while remaining competitive with other businesses, the baseline will not require
that these businesses choose between solvency and moral innocence. The justification for

15 We can imagine, moreover, that Debbie is acting in a community where employees depend on their
employers for all of their basic material needs.

& Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Needs
this

for

exploitation

flexibility

treatment

But,

this

does

is

401

that,

of

whe

others,

not

mean

may
well
be
other,
lower
rectify
her
employees'
ma
constraints
facing
her.
N
microenterprise
loan
pro
Saloman
has
developed
th
developing
improved
safet
better
access
to
first
aid,
s
use
of
potentially
danger
healthy
food
to
employees
the
nutrition
levels
of
em
wage
levels
(Radin
2003).
wage
benefits,
increasing
through
wage
increases
of
Debbie
might
also
help
c
targeting

pay

consumers

additional

proposals

have

certifying

code

been

for

mad

compliance

(Moran

greater

(inform

money

2002).

with

More

employment

regula

living
wage
to
her
emplo
requirements
for
higher
w
would

are

lighten
the
burden
p
more
than
happy
to
ex

moral
Young

obligations
(2004)

the

unjust

for

those

bring

social

that

change,

these

institution

individuals

about

Given

related

argues

direc

as

is

clarificati

Exploitation.
The
harm
o
baseline:
While
A
might
m
baseline
of
no
interaction
what
is
owed
by
A
to
B.
Th
cede
to
B:
(1)
as
much
as
is

16

Christine

Korsgaard

justifies

as
a
two-level
theory
so
as
to
obedience
to
the
Formula
of
H

treating
persons
as
ends,
we
ca
abandoned
because
it
is
not
app
"[i]t
defines
the
goal
toward
wh
features
of
it
are
most
importa

objectionable"

(1986,

p.

347).

where
non-compliance
by
other
particularly
goal
oriented.

& Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

402

J.C.

Snyder

up
until
B
reaches
reasonability
allo
deficiency
and
lux
deviations
from
th
extent

that

norm

5 The Non-worseness Claim

Before concluding, I would like to consider an objection against my account of

exploitation. Alan Wertheimer (1996, pp. 289-293) considers what he calls the nonworseness claim (NWC) as an objection to his account of exploitation. The NWC creates a
worry for Needs Exploitation as well, and accounts of mutually beneficial exploitation
generally. The NWC claims that an interaction Y between A and B cannot be morally worse
than no interaction at all if Y makes both A and B better off when compared to a baseline of

no interaction. Matthew Zwolinski specifically uses the NWC to deny that mutually
beneficial exploitation could justify interference with the opportunity for sweatshop
employment as "it would be odd to blame MNEs for helping some when we blame
individuals less (or not at all) for helping none" (2007, p. 708). In short, the NWC denies
the possibility that a mutually beneficial exploitative interaction can be morally worse than
no interaction at all.

It is easy to see how the NWC, if true, creates a problem for my account of exploitation
in the context of sweatshop labor. Consider the potential interaction between would-be
Developing World workers and a would-be Western employer Sam. Sam is happy to open a
factory in the Developing World and hire a number of workers at the going market rate for

low-skill labor. This transaction would provide a sizable profit to Sam and improve the
prospects of each of his workers. However, Sam is informed that a large number of people

in his community consider that the market wage he would pay to his employees is far too

low. If he proceeds with the transaction, he will be accused of exploiting his workers,
shunned by certain friends, and perhaps face a boycott of his products. Sam does not want

to face these consequences, but also does not wish to pay his workers a living wage or
investigate the range of non-wage benefits he might provide his workers. Instead, he invests

his capital in a different enterprise in his own country. This investment produces a lower

yield for Sam, and his would-be employees in the Developing World do not gain the
advantage of employment in his factory. Each is made worse off when compared to the
exploitative interaction. Yet, by refraining from the interaction altogether, Sam is immune to
charges of exploitation and can take the profit from his investment without worry of moral
condemnation from others. The intuition in this case is that it is odd to say that it is morally

better for Sam to refrain from a mutually beneficial interaction than to take on a role that

will benefit a group of deeply impoverished persons.17

Two responses to the NWC are available under my account. First, I can simply deny that

the NWC claim is true, at least as it is stated by Wertheimer. As I am proposing a

deontological account of exploitation, I can deny that the moral value of an action should

17 Similarly, a manager might hire only workers who are easier to raise to the level of a decent minimum of
well-being - for example, infertile or childless workers, and workers with fewer dependencies generally. As

with the NWC, here the manager seeks to avoid charges of exploitation by opting out of a mutually
beneficial relationship with those workers most in need. My thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this
example.

& Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Needs

be

exploitation

measured

the

solely

relationships

new

ways.

friend

into

refrain

403

Just

as

doing

from

by

that

it

its

we

can

somethin

engaging

in
wages
when
higher
wage
I
believe
this
first
respo
problem
with
the
intuiti
actions.
That
a
would-be
s
in
the
Developing
World
m
toward
others.
We
can
ima
three
can
provide
a
living
profits
from
the
interact
Ricardo
pays
his
employe
employees
a
living
wage.
and
this
exploitative
act
given
here
whose
attitude
offers

for

a
living
wage
to
his
all,
seems
morally
the

persons
will
life

in

the

generate,
over

the

Quinton,

on

exploitation,

of

Developing

though

he

capacity

the

other

hopes

different

of

to

skin

ha

max

colo

expression
through
a
set
o
attitudes
toward
others
ar
superior

to

both.18

6 Conclusion

Is sweatshop labor exploitative? What we do know is that the mere fact that the work is
voluntary and beneficial does not entitle us to a negative answer to this question. An
employer with an income level that goes well beyond the upper threshold for living a
reasonably flourishing life expresses a morally problematic valuation of his employees by
continuing to press for wage caps in the interest of yet greater benefits for himself. In these

cases, a relationship can be morally problematic, as the interests of one party are given
nearly exclusive weight over even the basic needs of others.

18 Ruth Sample takes a similar position when defending her intuition that mutually beneficial exploitation
can be morally worse than neglect. She holds that "a person who systematically avoids an interaction because
it would not be profitable enough, or even because it might be costly, may not have actually adopted a maxim

of beneficence. It will not always be clear when one has. Even if we see the obligation to refrain from
exploitation as a perfect, exceptionless duty (rather than a duty of beneficence), this leaves the question of

our duties of beneficence untouched. A person who systematically avoids such interactions - who is
determined to get the best deal or not interact at all - can hardly be said to take such a duty seriously" (2003,
p. 72). Given that I see needs exploitation as tied to a perfect duty of beneficence, Sample's point might be
changed to hold that even if one sees the duty of beneficence in needs exploitation as perfect, we still must
consider whether the imperfect form of that duty is being discharged through the person's other actions.

& Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

404

J.C.

Snyder

Employers

have

life

for

the

employer's

living

their

wage

an

full-t

abil

while

employer
must
pu
reasonable.
Even
em
offering
than

can

that

wage

or

which

express

the

bo

im

aware

of
the
resul
Should
the
employ
reasonable
unde
flourishing
life
sh
she
promotes
acce

decent

My

human

account

other

life

of

Ne

interactions

when
these
relatio
needs
of
emp

basic
that

they

be

met.

Acknowledgments

this
project.
1
would
Soran
Reader,
and
an
comments.

References
Arnold D, Bowie N (2003) Sweatshops and respect for persons. Bus Ethics Q 13:221-243
Bearak B (2001) Lives held cheap in Bangladesh sweatshops. New York Times, Al. April 15
Bernstein A (2000) A world of sweatshops. Business Week, 52. November 6
Brock G (Ed) (1998) Necessary goods: our responsibilities to meet others' needs. Rowman & Littlefield,
Lanham

Fraser N (1989) Talking about needs: interpretive contests as political conflicts in welfare-state societies.
Ethics 99:291-313

Hartman L, Wokutch R (2003) Nike, Inc.: corporate social responsibility and workplace standard initiatives
in Vietnam. In: Hartman L, Arnold D, Wokutch R (eds) Rising above sweatshops. Praeger, Westport,
pp 145-190
Hartman L, Wokutch R, French JL (2003) Adidas-salomon: child labor and health and safety initiatives in

Vietnam and Brazil. In: Hartman L, Arnold D, Wokutch R (eds) Rising above sweatshops. Praeger,
Westoort. do 191-248

Henderson D (1996) The case for sweatshops. Fortune, 2. October 28

Herman B (1984) Mutual aid and respect for persons. Ethics 94:577-602
Herman B (2002) The scope of moral requirement. Philos Public AfT 30:227-256
Hill T (1991) Autonomy and self-respect. Cambridge University Press, New York
The International Monetary Fund (2008) World economic outlook database. Retrieved February 8, 2008,
from http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm

Kahn J (2003) China's workers risk limbs in export drive. The New York Times, A3. April 7
Kittay E (1999) Love's labor: essays on women, equality, and dependency. Routledge, New York
Korsgaard C (1986) The right to lie: Kant on dealing with evil. Philos Public Aft 15:325-349
Kristoff N (2006) In praise of the maligned sweatshop. New York Times, A21. June 6
KristoffN, WuDunn S (2000) Two cheers for sweatshops. New York Times Magazine, 70. September 24

Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Needs

exploitation

405

Krugman
P
(1997)
In
praise
of
Lopez-Calva
L
(2001)
Child
labo
MacDonald
GJ
(2006)
The
pow
Monitor,
14.
February
27
Mevers
C
(2004)
Wrongful
bene
Miller
nn 14Q-16S

(1987)

Exploitation

in

Miller S (2005) Need, care and obligation. R Inst Philos Suppl 80:137-160

Moran T (2002) Beyond sweatshops: foreign direct investment and globalization in developing countries.
Brookings Institution Press. Washington

Nussbaum M (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University
Press. New York

O'Neill O (1985) Between consenting adults. Philos Public Aff 14:252-277

Powers M, Faden R (2006) Social justice: the moral foundations of public health and health policy. Oxford
University Press, New York

Radin T (2003) Levi Strauss & Co.: implementation of global sourcing and operating guidelines in Latin
America. In: Hartman L, Arnold D, Wokutch R (eds) Rising above sweatshops. Praeger, Westport,
pp 249-292
Reader S (2003) Distance, relationship and moral obligation. The Monist 86:367-381
Reader S (2005) The philosophy of need. Cambridge University Press, New York
Sample R (2003) Exploitation: what it is and why it's wrong. Rowman & Littlefield, Latham
Scanlon T (1975) Preference and urgency. J Philos 72:655-669
Schapiro T (2003) Compliance, complicity, and the nature of nonideal conditions. J Philos 100:329-355
Schapiro T (2006) Kantian rigorism and mitigating circumstances. Ethics 117:32-57
Thomson G (1987) Needs. Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York

Varley P (1998) The sweatshop quandary: corporate responsibility on the global frontier. Investor
Responsibility Research Center, Washington
Waldron J (2003) Who is my neighbor?: humanity and proximity. The Monist 86:333-354
Wertheimer A ( 1 996) Exploitation. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Workers Rights Consortium (2008) Sample living wage estimates: Indonesia and El Salvador. Retrieved
February 8, 2008, from http://www.workersrights.org/LivingWageEstimates.pdf

Young I (2004) Responsibility and global labor justice. J Polit Philos 12:365-388
Zwolinski M (2007) Sweatshops, choice, and exploitation. Bus Ethics Q 17:689-727

} Springer

This content downloaded from 5.67.189.149 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:18:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms