Genetics Blog

Scientific discoveries in terms of genetics has led to the possibility of altering humans in ways that have a high potential of eliminating negative qualities that can be found in our genetic make up. It can not only help humans that are already living with difficult diseases and illness, but could also be used to alter the genes of individuals before they are born in order to eliminate the issues before they can even start. However, with this "scientific power" also comes the prominent possibility that it will be abused. In fact, it can be viewed that almost every, if not all, scientific discoveries that can help human beings also come with the likelihood of abuse. With that in mind, should we not use these discoveries that can help us just because we are afraid that we will not be able to determine where to draw the line in terms of how we eventually use them? Or, should we allow them and try to determine what constitutes "taking it too far" as those situations arise, instead of fearing speculation of the potential issues beforehand? That's not to say that we should blindly allow these things without first forecasting potential issues, but instead allowing the fear of foreseen issues to stop us from allowing them in the first place.
The Brazil article does a very good job, in my opinion, of underlying the helpful possibilities that Trangenesis offers humanity. Especially when it is discussed that genetic alteration/combination is already used in pharmaceuticals, and also that genetic altering already happens naturally overtime. If our scientific understanding of genetics and genetic alteration has evolved enough that it can be used to eliminate genetic diseases passed down by the parents, or any other genetic weaknesses of the sort that will inherently provide someone with health disadvantages from the start, before their child is even born, why shouldn't it be allowed to happen?
The Buddhism and Christian articles, however, both bring good points to the table that should be thought about. While Buddhism neither opposes nor supports genetic alteration, they make a point that there should be a strong consideration of cause and effect in the decision process. Parents that are deciding whether or not they should have unborn child genetically altered should think about what factor is truly driving the decision. Parents should never want their children to suffer from any disadvantage they may genetically inherit, but there is a clear difference between suffering from a genetic health disadvantage, and suffering from a genetic physical disadvantage like height and others of the sort.
The Christian article brings up a very different issue for consideration. The idea of "designer babies" and testing multiple embryos in order to either find the best one or the one that can be used to treat an existing child, is where it is thought that the potential for abuse is very high. Bringing a child into the world for the purpose of being constantly used to help someone else is very dangerous in my mind. Even though the intentions are good, that child would have no say in how their body is being used. Also, that child is very likely to have emotional issues knowing that they were only brought into the world because circumstance dictated it. On the other issue, choosing from multiple embryos to find the one that is genetically superior, and even altering it further to enhance its physical appearance, allows for a highly superficial society to take over. Changing someones physical qualities like height, hair color, and eye color, can take away from makes a person unique and can also take away from how that person identifies with their family.
In short, genetic alteration can be a very good thing and very helpful in eliminating harmful diseases/disabilities and should definitely be allowed to take place, but there is a line that should be strongly considered where abusing it can be very harmful.

Genetic enhancement blog

I believe genetic enhancement is morally permissible in the cases to avoid genetic disorders. I believe one of the main objections to this falls into the trap of the slippery slope argument, “Well if you can modify the embryo to avoid genetic disorders then what is stopping parents from changing their babies gender? Or eye color?” I think in order for genetic enhancement to be permissible, there must be some line draw deeply in the sand to prevent against changes for any lesser reason. I think it would do the most good for the parents who are plagued with fear to bring a child into this world with a debilitating disorder, and for the child who will have a better opportunity for a normal life. I would even go so far to say that genetic enhancement is more ideal for those who want to have a baby. This procedure can reduce the risk of abortion for those families that do not have the means to raise a child with a genetic disorder. Instead of potentially have an abortion, families can plan ahead and go about a moral, healthy pregnancy.

One of my concerns with genetic enhancement is in the very title, enhancement. It’s saying that those who are healthier, are better, an enhancement of those with a disorder. There are enough set-backs and bad feelings for those with illnesses and disorders, I think it might further this pain if they see that parents think that the “healthy” embryo is the “better” embryo, does that mean that healthy people are better than those with a disorder?

genetic enhancement

In the article discussing a Buddhist perspective on genetic enhancement, there are both positive and negative factors that can come into play when talking about this matter. Many Buddhists would see genetic enhancement as a bad thing in that it is interfering with nature, and changing the way of how it is naturally done and should be done. While this is true, there is also a strong acceptance in Buddhism that what is more important are the intended actions that are being done. For instance if what is being done can be seen as truthful and morally right then they would view this action as being adequate. In my own opinion on genetic enhancement I believe that it would depend on the situation to determine if could be beneficial or harmful. I think that as long as the person is willing to take the risks and possible malfunctions, then it could turn out to be a good thing. It can and most certainly has the potential to create cures for diseases that are deadly to humans which will also have a way to increase intelligence in our society today. I believe that in the future it will be a very common thing to see and that eventually it will be a normal thing for people. I do not think that it is looked at today as a normal thing in many peoples eyes.

Designer Savior Baby

The article about the Christian response to designer babies presented a very interesting ethical dilemma.  If one of their children is going to die from a medical condition, but it is possible to save him by having another child and using a stem cell transplant from its umbilical cord, is it ethical to do so?  Some argue that this is a noble reason to have a child, while some argue that it is immoral because it commodifies the life of the new child, and will inflict psychological damage when the child learns why he or she was born.

I believe that the morality of this action rests on the truth of the parents’ claim that the new child will be “a cherished member of a loving family.”  Children who were born as “accidents” sometimes struggle with feelings of being less wanted, but in the end, the most important thing is whether they truly understand the sincerity of the love from their parents.

When I imagine myself in this situation, it is difficult to judge how I would have felt growing up with the knowledge that I had been born for this reason, so I think a better scenario might be to imagine if I found out now that this was the case.  I know that my parents love me, and I have spent 21 years getting to better understand the depth of that, and finding out now that they had had me to use my stem cells would not invalidate that.   I would probably struggle with it a little, and that would be a burden my parents put on me, but the love they have given me would more than make up for it.  A far greater burden to put on a child would be two parents with a history of depression having a child they knew would probably struggle with it as well, but this is considered acceptable, and so should the case in the article.

“But when we know ourselves as begetters and not as makers, we will seek to shape and nurture only those whom we first accept without qualification.”

Forgetting the religious connotation of this sentence, I believe it to be the most compelling argument of the pieces we read. The ideas behind designer babies and human enhancement revolve around fear. Fear of death, fear of failure, of not being good enough. Humans have a very natural urge to want to control our lives, improve ourselves and alleviate the suffering in others. These are noble intentions, but they can create unrealistic expectations for ourselves about the future and each other. The Christian authors offer the example of a child struggling to accept that he was “designed” and not accepted as is. This idea can be extended even further. For argument’s sake, what happens when humans start living for centuries at a time, or even a millennium? There’s a reason Wolverine from X-Men and every vampire ever are always so grouchy. Not to derail myself here with fantasy but I think the point remains that most people generally agree that a longer life does not equate to a better life. My argument might be closing in on a slippery slope fallacy. Just because some genetic health enhancements are employed, doesn't necessarily mean that people will start trying to achieve near immortality. I think a fear of death is necessary for human life; otherwise we wouldn't care to continue living. At a certain point though, embracing death at the end of a healthy and well-lived life is a point of solace for most that are able to reach it. I would cautiously endorse life-saving genetic treatments, but steer clear of designer babies and human enhancement. 

Genetic Enhancements

I have mixed opinions on genetic enhancement. I recognize my inconsistency because it is all relatively the same process of gene interference or interactions. I agree with the concept of IVF. While I would support adoption over IVF for parents who want children and cannot have them.  I can also accept the reasoning behind wanting genetically similar children. I think that IVF supports life, and in some ways the sanctity of life, maybe in terms acceptable by Buddhist karma. I also think that genetic enhancement to avoid genetic illness is morally permissible, because that is also improving the quality of life. When genetic enhancement includes picking and choosing traits or cosmetic appearances through gene manipulation, then I believe you cross the line of moral impermissibility. That is too superficial of a reason to me to begin playing with genetics. I also think the line is crossed when dealing with gender selection of children. That can offset the very nature of a society, and be biologically detrimental. Transgenesis while in the de Fonseca article may be a part of natural evolution seems dangerous as well when humans play with it. However, that may just be my ignorance.

Some things should not be changed

Within the subject of prenatal bio physiology, the nature of human development and human existence there are many things we can change due to medical revolutions and new therapies. One thing we should not touch though is the genetics of an unborn child under many circumstances. This argument has three areas to cover, one of the actual health of the child, one of the gene pool of Human race, and lastly the actual cause for this to become far more than just a basic health benefit.

First of all the health issues at hand are incredibly high simply because we do not understand the human genetics of adults, even less of a developing embryo. In the Brazil article they do talk about natural transgenesis and the fact that there is a path to actually make it sustainable, for a small period of time. Genetically speaking, there is something that is very commonly known through the community, that if something is shut down that we do not know the full adult and geriatric expression for, it is best not to modify that gene prenatally. The damage could be impact later in life because a gene was supposed to activate and it was repressed. Unfortunately, as bleak as it seems, we do not have a grasp as to whether or not it is healthy to do this because recently we only sequenced the human genome, we have no relative idea what a good majority of it actually does.

Second is the gene pool of Humans in general. Genetic modification through therapy after genes have been expressed is a viable way  of treatment that the medical field has been turning towards for decades now. However if the gene is something that is prenatal, then we should not touch it. The reason may seem cold but if something was affected prenatally, then it was not meant to actually be a viable offspring. Things like Cri Du Chat and other prenatal disorders that end in mortality of offspring occurs for a reasons that the genetic line is not viable and the fact of the matter is that those genetic lines then become resource spending portions of the population that we are slowly starting to not be able to sustain.

Lastly, this has too much potential to be abused. Sure we could create international laws and regulation but the fact of the matter is that there will heavy abuses. There will be a possibility of people using this to make the perfect soldier, athlete, model, genius, and as much as those things will be desirable, it loses humanity's touch. What makes us human is our difference and the genetic lines that we have are all luck of the draw, and it would be an absolute disaster if we became a perfect race and lose the individuality, that makes every human unique.

Blog Post 12

                I think having the option to design your child to your liking can be extremely damaging. I don’t think any person should have that kind of power especially in a society like the one we live in today that is heavily dependent upon physical appearances. By screening for things such as genetic disorders, sex or other features, parents would be able to decide on the fate of their child. This could create new stigmas and discrimination that are attached to genetic defects. It would further instill prejudices that are present today against people with genetic defects and would favor those who would be considered “normal”. The effects of genetically designing a baby ripple out from just the immediate family and can affect any progress that has been made in reducing the stigma’s attached to developmental defects.

Another topic that is an area of debate is genetic modification for medical purposes. This case is discussed in the Christianity article. The premise of this practice is that parents who have a child who has some sort of illness opt to have another baby and genetically modify it so the child being born can be a donor for whatever needs the older child has. I personally don’t agree with this. If you look at it from the perspective of the child being born, this could cause a lot of psychological damage. The child would know that he or she was only brought into the world to aid the sick child. There is also a lack of consent with situations like these. The child is essentially an experiment from the moment he or she is born and doesn’t have any way of removing him or herself from it. I understand that parents who have a child who is ill would want to do everything they could in their power to help their child, but where should one draw the line? Isn’t it morally impermissible to bring a child into the world for reasons other than just to expand the family? 

Genetically Modifyed

When looking at this idea of genetically modifying things in particular humans and different organs what strikes me as interesting from the start is the fact that this is a completely new area that we really don’t know too much about. With many other topics that we look have information about that topic and can make more educated predictions as to what the effects of it could be. In this case there has been limited study done due to opposition from many groups. After reading the articles I believe that though this could be beneficial if the process could be refined and mastered but I also feel as if it could cause problems. I feel that this would help the organ shortage and could possibly save lives but living in a society that is very driven by physical appearance that is where the problems arise. I feel as though if this practice became more main stream it could cause many unforeseen problems. It would only increase our society’s obsession to look a certain way. Looking at plastic surgery now and how many cases we see daily of people who have gone overboard and become obsessed and sadly in many cases have even passed away due to complications. If it became acceptable to basically sculpt a person it could have seriously negative effects on society. Though I do feel this could be used in a good way, currently I don’t think that us as a whole are ready for it or would be able to handle it.     

Blog Post 12

The idea of "creating a child" has many pros and cons; however the under thought consequences of such an action may be more than society is willing to deal with in the long term. Being able to screen for sex, genetic defects, and other worrying features of to be parents could cause a swaying of decisions, potentially threatening the child's life.  Thinking in the larger picture however, these threats could lead to major changes within the nation's economic and social norms.  As of now, you can find out the sex of your child from between 13-20 weeks into pregnancy, with abortion being done up to 24 weeks along.  This means technically, mothers could abort based on the sex of their child but at this point studies show that most are too far along to terminate then.  By being able to tell the sex of children far earlier in this process, it would be much more likely for society to develop a sexist prejudice as a result.  

New advances in technologies like this however may not be such a bad thing after all.  Is the point of evolution not to breed the strongest, fastest, smartest, etc?    By being able to screen for life threatening diseases, imagine the amount of pain and suffering that would simply vanish if parents chose this as a reason to terminate.  Both of these cases are very equal in my mind as the risks barely nudge out the benefits.  I believe technologies are still too new, as well as societies threat of acting irresponsibly, to justify designer children as being ethical.

Blog Post #12

I think there comes a very high cost to having an ability to design your child. Although the advantages that come to having antenatal screenings could be helpful in identifying children with burdensome conditions, reduce risks to mothers, reduce public costs of care and our ability to choice. But I think that having this miracle, the ability  to bring a child into the world, is something that shouldn't be designed by you. I think it is naive to think that parents should have a choice over what their child is like, despite their autonomy. In the case of Down syndrome, I think that by considering it as a genetic defect further promotes this idea of ableism - or otherwise discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.
Just because someone is handicapped - it does not lessen them as a person. To think that you could save your child from a life as a child with down syndrome is a mightily selfish thing. From those handicapped that I have had the privilege to know (all who are working members of society), they do not look down on their situation - they are proud to be who they are, just the same as someone who is proud to be an individual. I think the real reason that people try to get rid of this "defect" is that it is a "burden" that many parents don't want to deal with.
I think that for situations in which the child is still able to function - like down syndrome child - genetic specialization is an unethical thing. There is a valuable lesson that we can learn from any handicapped individual. If we rid ourselves of such an opportunity, we are missing something pretty important that we cannot learn from anything else.

Blog post 12

If you choose to post by Wednesday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about designer babies and human enhancement, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about designer babies and human enhancement.

volunteer tourism

Volunteer tourism is something that when it is properly executed, can be very helpful to the communities in the third world countries that are struggling.  I think that this is something that we should feel a moral responsibility to do, but we need to do it with the full intention of helping others, not to make ourselves feel better.  Some people can empathize so greatly with people in third world countries that need help.  I think that the hardest part about volunteer tourism being effective is whether or not we volunteer our time AND our knowledge.  We cannot just go and set up the community so that while we are there and helping them they benefit, we need to set it up so that they can sustain the lifestyle when we leave.  We need to give them the knowledge to succeed.  Many times volunteers go into this for the wrong reasons, but when they do go into volunteer tourism with the intentions of truly helping out a community that is struggling, the possibilities are endless.  I think that we need to focus more programs on sharing knowledge and teaching them skills in addition to the projects for buildings and schools.  Although volunteer tourism can increase the divide between the rich and the poor, I think that the more help and knowledge we give them now, the better off the future will be for them and hopefully they will be able to thrive and live great lives.  Overall, I think that more research needs to be done in which programs are the most effective for the locals and what they need the most from the volunteers.  

volunteer tourism

Connor Newlin

I think the second two authors are very quick to say people only do volunteer projects to feed their ego's. I like to think that people who pursue these projects often actually want to do some good in this world after living a privileged life. Humans are not always so selfish in nature that they cant do good for others. If some photo ops for Facebook and good stories come out of volunteer tourism then so be it. One should be proud that they have the drive to assist another country less fortunate than their own and if that experience benefitted you and the people you were intending to assist then there is no problem sharing this with the world. Overall these articles make it seem as though traveling to a country and working to better the community is more harmful than good. Other than the orphan-pimping corruption I find it hard to believe that volunteers are really making communities worse. obviously more direction and guidance is needed for a lot of volunteers otherwise opposition would not be so strong. I tend to think it is either travel to a country and get your hands dirty volunteer work, or nothing at all. Just sending in money does not make people feel good about what they are doing and thus they will not spend money on it regardless of whether it is more effective. To me this is not so bad, it may seem a bit selfish in nature but everyone loves to travel and put smiles on faces and if the community can progresses because of it there is no problem. I would encourage volunteer work even more than donating money to organizations if it had a bit more focus and the corruption and misguided attempts were removed. Traveling to a country to help them would then be mutually beneficial for all participants. Building a friendship and a cultural bond with someone from another country is great for both parties as well because everyone could use some cross-cultural interaction in their life and this only comes from traveling and doing some real work.

When Possible, Donate Money

Each article on volunteer tourism appears to reach the conclusion that participating in such activity is ethical when the volunteers carefully consider the culture they are entering, remain flexible to the needs of the community, act in relevant and realistic ways that appear to be a part of a larger plan for the helping the community, and ensuring that volunteers do what they can to ensure that local workers and the local economy do not get hurt. Most importantly, the authors suggest that the potential tourist must spend a significant amount of time considering what causes are the most efficient and have the best potential to serve the host community. While I acknowledge that under these circumstances volunteer tourism can be a positive for suffering communities, I do believe “voluntourism” is unethical when donating money is an available option.

In all cases of volunteerism I believe the only focus should be on the communities in need of aid. If tourists truly are most concerned about bettering a community and donating money has been shown to be an effective way to foster within the community solutions, I believe it is unethical for tourists to “serve” a community. I do not buy the “getting my hands on” the community feeling. Such arguments are selfish and dangerous. It is not about you feeling good about laying a hand in serving the community if your hand is perpetuating the narrative that “we” must save “them.” Despite the desire to give time and effort, when giving money is an efficient option, it is better for potential tourists to stay home and help foreign communities help themselves as much as possible. Volunteers should be concerned with empowering communities with the belief that they can help themselves, with a little outside assistance. While the money might be necessary, the hard work required to better communities is best when it comes from within the community. 

Hopefully, hope for volunteer tourism

Similar to the issues with foreign aid, volunteer tourism may sound positive, but is highly complex and not without many flaws. As I do not identify as a consequentialist, the arguments to whether or not volunteer tourism is doing any actual good is less important than the deontological implications of volunteer tourism. I think the most intriguing arguments made in these pieces is about the unequal caring or responsibility relationships that can be propagated by volunteer tourism. I feel like the root of the problems that can result from volunteer tourism is the lack of respect and systems of inequality that it can perpetuate. That being said, and similar to the articles we read, I truly hope that doesn’t mean that there is no right way to create relationships of respect with people of different socioeconomic status (or any positionality for that matter)- and I do believe that this is possible, and necessary for living in our globalized world. Thus, I agree with the acknowledgement made by Zakaria in “The White Tourists’ Burden”, that even though volunteer tourism has many flaws, the educational component through the cultural exchange should be promoted rather than thrown away. I believe that for volunteer tourism to be a positive exchange, the projects must come from the community and be centered on what they need you to do, rather than what you want to do for them. This lends itself to the idea of the tourist being culturally sensitive, flexible, and realistic to the needs of the community and the actual (most likely minimal) contributions that the tourist can truly make.

The volunteer tourist (and perhaps volunteers more generally speaking), is in all likelihood able to do the trip and volunteer due to privilege. I think it is necessary that volunteer tourists recognize this, but I don’t believe it should be the reason for going. As I stated earlier, I think the importance from acts such as this are from the exposure both parties have to one another. Still, I am not 100% sure how to go about learning from other people in an entirely unproblematic way. However, I do not way to let the fact that I know I have privilege stop me from something I deem important- learning about, empathizing with, and being able to do work more effectively in a global community through exposure to view points and ways of life and thinking that may be vastly different than my own. This should not be done in places where people do not want foreigners coming in, but I think that the goal of volunteer tourism should be—when wanted by a community—a means for learning for both parties, as equally as possible. This can be achieved not through photo-ops and white savior complexes, but hopefully from a true desire to learn from rather than teach at the communities that volunteer tourists interact with.

Voluntourism

           I do agree with the article's perspective that most of the voluntourism done today isn't very beneficial to the local area and with the case of orphans, it can actually be harmful. However, I do think that if the aim of voluntourism was shifted from the volunteers just gaining life experience to the poor and impoverished it could do a lot of good. The articles mentioned that just hanging out with orphans or building homes doesn't really help the situation for any of the people since it doesn't give them any actual skills or help elevate them out of their current situation. Even small changes could be done to make it more beneficial to the local population, such as farming and giving out food instead of just hanging out with orphans and building houses. Another good alternative, though it might limit the number of people that could apply, would be to teach courses in agriculture or a marketable skill that would help them gain employment. So overall while i do agree with the complaints that voluntourism doesn't currently do that much good, it could be changed to actually help out the impoverished people.

Blog post 12

If you choose to post by Monday night after Thanksgiving break by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about volunteer tourism, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about volunteer tourism.

A change

In the world of so many people it is becoming increasingly alarming as to how bad the effects of natural disasters become. The people affected need help and the damage that happens needs to be repaired for that area to resume normal life, but the way the world approaches it completely at the wrong angle. As shown in the article about Iran in Bam there was an earthquake in 2003 and the effect of international aid was abysmal  at best. It was so abysmal in fact that afterwards Iran started to distaste disaster aid to the point that it restructured it system to better help theses situations hence the earthquake management in Baluchistan in 2013. The wrong movement of alot of relief aid is that they just throw money and supplies at an issue and expect it to be completely solved. That cannot be the case, because if there is no infrastructure then there cannot be a fully solved problem. Moreso even if there is infrastructure but there is no way to improve it, then there is no actual way to help. The world should honestly think about the Chinese approach to solving the disaster and instability crisis in the world, invest. If one puts money down to build an actual layer of infrastructure then there is an actual way to help the country. If you provide an investment then the country's government will have to pay back and cause the actual momentum to improve will start. There has to be an active role in aid aside from a couple of workers and doctors on the ground, to reshape the world there needs to a proactive role in actual cementing a stable block to build on. Without a stable platform there is nothing left but instability and inability to do anything but mop up bloody from a wound but never seal it completely shut.

Foreign Aid

Although foreign aid and intervention has proven to be more complicated than simply bringing in food and supplies, or giving money to  "poor" countries, I do believe it is still essential.

Many Western countries have a history of exploiting these  "poor" countries and have hindered their progress. I believe these western countries are now indebted to the other countries and must work to reverse the damage they have done. Many of the articles we read for this class argue that foreign aid has not been as helpful as it should be, however it seems the problem is not the aid itself, but rather the distribution. Instead of giving local governments money, which has been embezzled from the public into individuals' hands, we, or those giving aid, should invest in education, and improving the economy. Perhaps we can invest in individuals through grants and micro loans in order for them to become educated and empower them to improve their local communities. This ground-up effect may be the catalyst for a sustainable society. As some of the texts pointed out, we should not bring in food from the US, we should support the local farmers which fuels their economy. We should also not bring in condoms from the US to prevent HIV, but rather buy them in Asia where they are cheaper.

If we really wanted to help, we would not be half-assing (excuse my language), our aid. We would also attempt to be more culturally sensitive and not provide meals with pork in Islamic societies. Ideally we should work in teams with people from many backgrounds, with expertise in various fields, and with the locals in order to ensure the best distribution.

Although I do not know much about micro loans, from what I've read, it appears as though they have helped restore the economy and society for many. Especially when the recipient was a woman. This independence has empowered her and when she no longer needs to rely on her husband, she would endure less violence; not to say it has completed ended gender violence. If small donors have been able to impact societies, I do not see why foreign aid should not make more of an impact, if distributed correctly.

Blog post 12

If you choose to post by Monday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about global aid, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about global aid.

Corporate Social Responsibility

In “Defending Sweatshops,” Jagdish Bhagwati’s recognizes the existence of a “Corporate Social Responsibility,” but does not define its meaning aside from excluding higher wages for sweatshop workers. My understanding of “CSR” is that businesses owe their existence, and therefore their ability to profit, to society. Because of the nature of this relationship, businesses have certain obligations to society that they must fulfill. Bhagwati writes, “Rewarding workers who are already doing better than their equally impoverished brethren is not my idea of what I would do by way of my CSR; and you should not be able to browbeat me into saying that your way should be my way.” If Bhagwati accepts my definition of “CSR,” I will argue that Bhagwati’s acknowledgment of a “CSR,” followed by his statement that “you” (society) cannot browbeat business into “your” way simply does not work.

            Bhagwati acknowledges that business owe society for their existence and must fulfill certain obligations. With this in mind, it makes little sense for Bhagwati to argue that society cannot argue for its way to be his way. If an organization or government can gather enough societal support to demand that businesses pay employees more respectable wages, than businesses should accept this as part of their obligation to society. Organizations representing the interest of society are responsible for establishing the rules of social responsibility that businesses owe, not businesses. I believe it is more reasonable to put faith in these organizations to establish those responsibilities than businesses themselves, because while businesses will want to maximize their profits while doing the least they can to benefit society, groups advocating for more difficult obligations are doing so with the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. Setting unreasonable responsibilities would be detrimental, and only those they believe are worthwhile and fair would be put in place. 

Sweatshops

In Jagdish Bhagwati’s piece, “Defense of Sweatshops,” he commits the fallacy of equivocation when he talks about corporate social responsibility, or CSR, as he calls it.  He argues that by asking corporations to pay sweatshop workers a living wage, they are asking them to be altruistic because this is more than “what the market pays.”  He says that this is asking them to have corporate social responsibility, but that corporations should be able to choose how they want to apply this responsibility, for example by building playgrounds.  However, the CSR of building playgrounds is not the same as the CSR that people are asking for.  Building playgrounds helps people, but the people in favor of CSR are not saying “you have a responsibility to be a positive influence in society in general.”  They are saying “you have a responsibility to care for the people who are a part of your company, or at least not to exploit them.”  These are two very different takes on CSR, and the author pretends that people are asking for the first definition.

Bhagwati might respond that these two things really are the same, because they both go above and beyond what is really required, and that corporations are not exploiting people because they are merely paying “what the market pays.”  This is unreasonable because he says himself that these sweatshops are often the only option people have, and that many would otherwise turn to child prostitution.  He is essentially arguing here that it is perfectly ethical to pay people a pittance for incredibly hard work because it is better than sex slavery.

Circumstances

The issue I find with sweat shops is the amount of restrictions that are not set on the labor of the country. The reason that U.S. companies are able to go out of hand and girls like Meem are allowed to work at that age is because the companies that function in the west are not subjugated by the labor laws of the west. The companies give revenue to the country that is a fraction of what is made in the U.S. but because the government and the people need it, there isn't much of a choice to be had. Basic working privileges such as toilets, breaks and hour restrictions are non existent here, because if it were the companies would not be there in the first place. The root isn't trying to fix the immediate problem, because that only lasts so long as a solution, its to fix the bigger problem at hand, which is government's management in countries with heavy sweatshops. Their management over their human rights allowance and their people's sovereignty should be their responsibility. Wages as shown by Ghagwati is not a huge thing and does sustain people, its just that when compared to the dollar value it seems diminished. The bigger issue is the working conditions and those come under the government and corporation's responsibility. To help that cause infrastructure has to be created and the well being of the economy has to be leveled so that governments have leverage against companies to create a surrounding that can aid to well being of the people.  

Sweatshops

The most troubling thing that I found within this subject came from the Aulakh article mostly where a nine year old girl who once enjoyed her childhood had the focus of her life change so quickly to being centered around her job in a sewing factory. Even worse was that her aspirations were not to one day get away from working in a sweatshop, but rather to one day work in a larger factory just because there was more money to be made.
When Meem described her day as being a good one, it would seem that it meant that something good actually happened for her that day. Instead, her description of a good day was one in which she was not yelled at for humming too loudly while she sat on the floor and worked, and the electricity did not play hooky in that the three ceiling fans in the building to keep everyone from apparent heat exhaustion kept running throughout her 9 am to 9 pm shift.
This led me to wonder why someone would allow children to essentially give up their current and future lives to work all day every day under conditions that are seemingly detrimental to both their physical and mental health. One opinion that was brought up was that the children are the best workers because they "don't know any better" and they do not complain about the pain that they are subjected to while working (i.e. chronic bodily aches and pains). It seems to me that the reason the children do not complain is because they are in constant fear of the adult individuals that they work for. This nine year old evidently gets yelled at for simply humming or talking while she works. It is also described that she does not look up as she sits on the floor and works. It does not seem to me that these children "do not know any better", but rather their minds have been warped by their working conditions to be fearful of saying anything at all so as not to make their situations worse than they already are.
Finally, it was brought up in the Satyarthi article that many countries use excuses of adult unemployment, illiteracy, and other factors to justify the use of child labor in poverty. I would ask in this case, if the rate of adult unemployment and illiteracy is so high, why would the unemployed adults not attempt to find work in these factories rather than sacrifice the lives and potential to be educated of their children instead? If these children can go to school and be educated so as to better this unemployment situation for future generations, it would seem that the door would open for the potential of decreasing the poverty level in these areas in the future. Rather, it is apparently seen as good for these children to work in these factories in order to avoid resorting to prostitution or starvation, as if those are the only other options presented to all of them in their situation.

When companies have the means

Bhagwati seems to confuse himself in the section on wages. While he talks about the economic construct of added value and the relative wages of western nation-backed sweatshops, he misses out on something very important: the only reason for a company to move the locations of the jobs it creates is because there is some kind of financial incentive to do so. What this means is that, while his notion of general protections against child labor are not illegitimate, there is no reason not to pressure western companies to use the financial portion of the incentive they get for moving their jobs to sweatshops to improve the working conditions in those same sweatshops, and to prohibit children from being forced into labor at their shops. If providing better conditions for their workers tips the balance of financial incentives in favor of moving jobs back to a country that has labor laws in place, that means that that should be done. Otherwise, companies are literally profiteering off of the suffering of their workers in third world or otherwise disadvantaged countries, which should come as no real surprise to anyone who has read much on the subject of sweatshops before.