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.

Blog 11

Bhagwati’s Defending Sweatshops piece is definitely thought provoking. It made me realize a perspective that I hadn’t very much thought of in the past, that sweatshops might be a relatively “good thing”.  He argues that many people depend on this grueling work for their livelihood, and that trying to boycott large corporations that use these cheap goods may actually prove to destroy lives rather than help them.  This also goes back to what Bhagwati describes as using distance to makes oneself more comfortable with something they consider immoral.  Unfortunately, this distance also creates ignorance for someone that Bhagwati calls being on “moral high ground”. I have to agree with Bhagwati on both of his points. I would rather know that someone is working in grueling and possibly dangerous conditions than destroy their entire livelihood as a whole. It doesn’t mean that something can’t be done in an attempt to help improve the conditions of these sweatshops. I also think there are a lot of cases in which people will be affected by something immoral once the distance between said person and said immorality is removed. 

Sweatshops

             Any argument about sweatshops seems to mostly  favor opposing the existence of  sweatshops. While there are some arguments for sweatshops such as the workers will have to take a worse job or that it does provide cheap goods, i don't think that it justifies their existence. The argument that it does provide cheap goods is correct, but it still doesn't justify the existence of sweatshops. It seems disgusting to argue the value of a cheap commodity over the suffering of a human being, especially since sweatshops usually use unskilled labor and in some cases children. The argument that the workers in these shops would just have to find a worse job if the sweatshops were shut down also seems morally wrong. Just because they have been forced into a terrible position doesn't mean that they only have to take terrible options to fix it. While these people are definitely poor, sweatshops definitely don't seem like the proper answer. This argument seems to shift the blame from the consumers who continue to buy products that were produced in sweatshops to the people that were forced into the shops in order to feed themselves or their family. The idea that sweatshops are their fault is horrifying considering that the consumers are the ones that enable the sweatshops to exist. The consumers are only sacrificing some of their expendable income by not buying from sweatshops, while those that work in sweatshops are sacrificing a possible source of income for them and their family so it seems terrible to try to put the blame onto the workers. While the owners of these sweatshops are also to blame, I still think that the consumers of these goods are the ones main ones to blame.

Always the larger systems...

Is an argument that girls who aren't working in sweatshops would be sold to prostitution actually a moral argument? Likewise, is a few more pennies per day are a better wage than other jobs in developing countries better than the other opportunities a reason to morally accept sweatshops? On a day to day level for the people abject to these issues, these arguments may very well hold true. I am not objecting to that nor am I comfortable or accepting of these circumstances for other humans and the implications they have for further humans and our environment. I realize that I will not know what is like to have no other opportunities other than working in a sweat shop and possibly gaining a higher status, especially as a woman, rather than working within some family business with a risk of being sold as a sex slave (not to claim that this is the case for everywhere around the world, but is, from what I have read, a plausible experience). However, as someone who is relatively privileged in this world, who reaps the benefits of this exploitation with the ability to sit in my bed writing about said exploitations, I cannot be on board with the arguments raised in that article. Once again, I realize that there are issues within the system and ways of helping people within said intuitions but I do not morally condone them when wealthy corporations in developed countries go on deepening wealth inequalities. This is because, as I have said, I do not accept most arguments that come from within our current system of colonization and capitalism. I don’t have the answers, and cannot speak for anyone else, because I can’t tell who else wants an iPhone (but maybe that’s something we want to democratically decide on as worth to create?)? However, just because it is difficult to imagine a system that works counter to the one we are in—one where prostitution or complete poverty are the only other viable opportunities to sweat shops and child labor—does not mean that the systems do not need to be themselves questioned and changed.

Sweat Shops

Sweat shops seems like an inherently unethical practice. Perhaps what makes them so unethical is because of the conditions that the people work under. The one article mentioned that in poor countries, there will be poverty, there will be low wages. But, I think that there shouldn’t be the terrible conditions that they work in. The spotty electricity in the case of Meem, the lack of a comfortable working area, the complete inability for the factory to provide its workers with proper equipment… All of those are things that can be solved and perhaps by having these companies demand those standards they could receive more money from foreign purchasers.

My first thought on sweatshops, before even reading, was to eliminate them, eradicate them from the system and push the labor pack home. After reading the articles I’m rather hesitant. By providing these jobs, albeit shitty ones, it allows for some form of ‘wealth’ to those living on the state of poverty. It provides a means of meager social mobility. Obviously their own country is not helping them, monetary or working standard wise. The money that is coming into their country is valuable and they need every penny they can get – case and point the long hours many workers put in per month (only to receive $36).

I think that mainly people object to sweatshops for a couple reasons, one listed above and also the exploitation of the impoverished of a developing country and the high population of children in the system working. I don’t agree with the exploitation that the US instills every day – and honestly that seems to be a problem that the US needs to fix. If the US stops buying the commodities that these sweat shops are putting out – perhaps that would cause a lack in production and usage of sweat shops in general. However that could result in more financial problems for those working.

As for the children aspect of this argument, I relate these children – earning money for their families – like the children of the depression era. I think of children shining shoes for a living, only as one example. Perhaps that example is too much of a false analogy -  but when families are in desperate need of money to survive, they have to employ whatever they can.

Labor exploitation

As I sit here, attempting to write my post, I can't help but feel defeated. I've struggled with my view on many of the issues we talked about in class and I guess the readings for tomorrow have brought my feelings into perspective. We live in an awful society, a society which focuses on personal and economic gains instead of humanity. It is difficult to dissociate myself and my thoughts from this capitalistic system which has influenced my whole life, yet somehow, a part of me always struggled with what I see as a flawed system. I am discouraged with the trajectory of humanity.

We place more value on material things than on lives. This is why we see little girls and boys losing their childhood to buy TV's and hair clips. This economic system has created such an economic disparity that in order to have the opportunity of possibly experiencing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we must sell our lives to these systems of corporations. Its not even the case where few people must b e sacrificed for the greater good, instead we are sacrificing the greater good for a few. We no longer know how to experience the joy of humanity, we can only appreciate consumption. Our worth is based on what we own, not who we are.

Life should not be a game of roulette or lottery. Our paths should not be determined by where we are born. Perhaps this issue hits close to home because I could have easily been one of those children working 12 hour days for a couple of cents. These children are not granted the opportunity to dream big. Yet here I am at a liberal arts college pondering these issues.

Regarding the Foxconn issue, just because they have provided counseling and other incentives, does not hide the fact that they are exploiting people. The primary reason these individuals are suffering mental health issues is because they are no longer allowed to live and be humans. They are not respected, they are seen as disposable. We are not machines, we cannot function as machines. Yet, most Westerners are guilty of fueling these problems. I recently purchased an iPhone 6; for the longest I was boycotting Apple products because I did not agree with the exploitation of children mining the metals used in their phones. Babies are dying for our entertainment and technological advances. Part of me feels guilty for caving in, however in the society I live in, it has become essential to have a well functioning phone. Before this phone, I had a horrible one which made it difficult to communicate with others. If I want to progress, and hopefully work in a human rights field, I must have access to proper communication. It is a Catch 22.

I'm not sure if we can fix it or where we would even begin to. At this rate, we might as well substitute humanity for robots, since it seems to be all we value. If so, should we extend ethical issues to these robots? Or as we have discussed in class, should we not because there is something in just being a human that cannot be measured.

No Defense of Sweatshops

Bhagwati makes an argument for continuing to support companies like Walmart and Primark, and while it is attractive, it feels to me contradictory to the rest of his argument. To avoid a false analogy, I would say continuing to support Walmart is similar, but not exactly like, negotiating with terrorists. This country has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists because it only encourages awful acts of violence, and this same idea applies to the sweatshop situation. If consumers continue to buy goods from Walmart, the executives will not change anything. It’s fair to say that these companies have at least done something to address poverty in South East Asia. But they could be doing so much more. Now I understand very little about economics. Coming up with a reasonable living wage for these workers is difficult; who’s to know what’s appropriate. But a quick google search will tell you that the net worth of the CEO of Walmart is 19.7 billion US dollars. It’s fair to assume that there is some room for experimentation when it comes to determining what a living wage is for these workers. The hubris of these corporate executives combined with their complete disregard for the sanctity of the lives of their workers is appalling, and simply cannot stand. We cannot idly watch in complacency with these companies when their excess amount of profits is too much for the average person to even comprehend, or more than one person could ever hope to spend in a lifetime. I think when the personal accounts of the people who have had to work in the sweatshops are taken into consideration; there is no defense of the sweatshops. 

sweatshops

Connor Newlin

The last article by Bhagwati is the one that I found most interesting. He seems very quick to put down anti sweatshop movements because by saying protesting them will only make it worse. He says that not buying a companies product who uses sweatshops will only leave the workers jobless or forced into prostitution. People legitimately need these jobs to and need the small amount of money they receive to stay afloat so "freeing" them from these jobs will essentially toss them onto the street.  this makes sweatshops seem like a preferable alternative however we cannot deny that they are morally wrong even with the benefits they bring to wealthy economies. I agree that some young people are uninformed and act too rashly on the subject but I think that change can only come about from the governments of countries who look the other way when asked about sweatshops. I am not sure, as a foreign consumer, how much we can do about the sweatshops. Companies can stop using them but then they will find it hard to stay competitive with those who do use them. the only option it seems is reasonable from an economic and moral standpoint is to have governments crack down and install child labor and wage laws. this will force companies to pay a proper price for their products and of course they will lose profits in the short run, but in the long run, as businesses always do, they will find new ways to stay profitable.

Sweatshops

I think that the issue of sweatshops is one that i did not realize how big of an issue that it still is today.  I can not believe that there are still hundreds of thousands of kids who are pulled from school to word long hard days for the rest of their lives.  They know nothing beside the sweatshops and most stay there for their whole life.  It was heartbreaking to read the story of Meem and how she didn't even complain about anything because she was there to work.  She didn't even know that she was being taken advantage of.  The moral issue that i have the biggest problem with is that industries are worried that if they improve the working conditions, it is going to negatively affect themselves. I think that the working conditions should be improved regardless of if it negatively affects the industry.  I think that these conditions should have never gotten this bad in the first place, and we need to put the rights and safety of people before the production of the industry. However, i think that people are looking at this argument wrong.  Ideally it would have a positive effect on the industry and production because the people would be compelled to work harder because there are incentives and they are being treated well.  They would have the incentive to work hard because they know how bad things can be, and they would have better treatment than a lot of others.

Meem

After reading the article about Meem and the labors work she must do every day in the factory in India there were several things that stuck out in my mind. First I found it interesting how the government refuses to address this issue, just like they refused to address the issue of the woman sex slaves. Rather than attempting to put an end to this it seems as if they almost encourage it because looking at the bigger picture it does stimulate their economy. In the case of Meem she came across to me as having a very utilitarianism attitude, in the sense that she realizes what she is doing is hard work but it’s for the greater good, that greater good being her family. Yet, this raises my main concern that as a small child she should not have the responsibly of helping provide for her family, and at least if she must work she should be in control of the money she in earning, possibly she could put it towards education and a better life. Hearing that she has to give her whole pay check to her father and gets to buy a few hair clips and maybe ice cream is completely absurd. With proper education she would realize that what is happening to her is wrong. The argument can be made that this is her only choice but in reality there are other options. Rather than for fitting her entire paycheck she should attempt to keep a chunk of it in hopes of putting it towards education. Also the problem can be seen as a culture one, the article mentions how the girls working do not think that it is odd that they are not in school, rather then promoting work the parents should promote and education which in the end could have the possibility to yield higher rewards than a menial labor job.        

Sweatshops

It believe it is difficult for me to separate my objective and emotional feelings about sweatshops because of the society I was raised in.  In our society, children are not permitted to work below a certain age without being highly regulated by the government.  Technically these are also the laws in many of the countries that hold the most child labor.  People argue that it is inhumane and unfair to make children work in these unfair conditions however part of the reason these conditions occur is because of the illegality of the action.  Put more simply, because of the cultural norms of children working at a younger age, it might be helpful for the governments of these countries to reform their rules so conditions and habits of these workers and owners can be improved.  Because of the grueling conditions families in places such as Pakistan can find themselves, it is sometimes absolutely necessary for children to step up and help support their families.  Here in the United States we are lucky enough where this rarely happens because of the limitations and rules we already have in place.  This gives us a very one sided view of so called 'child labor.'  I started working at the age of 11 to support myself and my own horse.  Even though I was doing this extracurricular activity for a hobby, people still called my parents cruel for letting me work all day in the heat of the summers and six feet of snow in the winter.  It didn't matter what the elements were or how tired I was, they were my responsibility and I was to do the work until they were sufficiently taken care of.  I see it in somewhat of the same way for child labor; the children have a responsibility to their parents if they are going to live under their roof to help support themselves.  It is just a different expectation than privileged countries have so it seems very jarring to think about.

child labor.

Today in almost any third world country you are all but guaranteed to find some type of child laboring in a big time industry. One specific industry that was discussed in the article by Satyarthi was about the “export-oriented” industries mainly in India. There are over 1 million children who work to produce more than two thirds of the world’s carpet supply. The types of work environments that these children are working in usually tend to be extremely hazardous most of the time being exposed to deadly fumes, high temperatures, and other horrible things. If children chose to speak out on these conditions or work at all they are usually yelled at or severally beaten by their mother. Although there are laws in place in countries such as India and Pakistan very little is actually done to have these laws enforced. The article also states how child labor has tripled in the past fourteen years. In my opinion I think there are far more measures that governments in countries such as India or Pakistan can take to assure the safety of children. A few solutions that instantly come to my mind about this situation would be for the government to make it illegal for parents to send their children into these corporations as well as being punished to a very high extent. Another argument that can be brought up against the fight would be making education more accessible to poor people this may be a bit far fetched but I do think it can be a do-able task. People will realize the circumstances if educated about it.

Blog post 11

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 sweatshops, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about sweatshops.

Blog post about the morality of organ selling

One of the Kantian arguments to Organ selling is that it interferes with one’s autonomy, namely the one who is selling their organ, and therefore it is not worth the good it produces, i.e. saving someone’s life who needed said organ. While I agree that it is harmful for a person to have his or her autonomy violated in the cases of coerced prostitution, I believe that one’s autonomy would not fully be defiled in the case of organ selling because of the check-ups to ensure that person’s health after the procedure. According Living Renal Transplantation very few people who donate kidney’s receive disease as a result, “Studies have repeatedly shown that the risk of developing end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was 03–0.05%17,18 and that survival of the donors who have been properly screened is similar, if not superior, compared with the general population.” This shows me that if organ selling is legitimately controlled and regulated by the government, as it is in Iran, the donor’s autonomy will not be violated. That being said, in order to preserve donors autonomy there must be adequate compensation and safe-guards put up to protect them. The black market, on the other hand, which just slices open the donors and gives them inadequate health-care and compensation, does violate the donors autonomy, which is what makes it morally wrong. 

A case for the legalization of organ selling

I find myself agreeing with the model that has been adopted in Iran. While I do think that selling body parts is not a proper way to make money, I think by implementing a system in which it is regulated would prove to have positive outcomes. By regulating the selling of organs, the amount of shady, illegal black market sales for would decrease. In the article about the selling of organs in Bangladesh, poor people were duped into believing they would be getting compensated by rich organ recipients for donating their money. They would encounter much additional suffering apart from the surgery, one donor accounts having to be circumcised before the surgery so the doctor would not notice that he and the organ-recipient weren’t actually “brothers”. The issue of diseased organs also arises with the sale of organs on the black market. It can be difficult to ensure that the donor would be receiving a diseased organ or one that could possibly not be a match.  Legalizing the sale of organs would also decrease the people who are waiting for an organ. According to the article by Ghods and Savaj, by implementing a system in which organ selling is legal and regulated, there is currently no waitlist for people in need of a kidney. If you look at the data for the past year, there are 90,000 people on the waiting list for a kidney. Only 17,000 people have received transplants. The majority of these transplants come from patients who are dead. Statistically, transplants from live donors are more successful than those from donors who are already dead. I personally would find it much easier to accept an organ donation from someone who willingly gave up their organ as opposed to someone who was listed as an organ donor and then died solely because the former willingly gave it up. I would find it extremely difficult to accept the fact that in order for me to live, someone else would have to die. 

Fallacy of equivocation or fundamental issue?

I think the issue I have with the idea of Living Unrelated Renal Donation (LURD) lies in potential perversion by making donation economic at all. My question for the authors of these articles would surround if buying and selling organs would create this corruption of the act of donating said organs in the first place. I understand the implications that the desired market is greater than altruistic donation allows for, but does that morally permit introducing an economic system to organ donation? The argument that there are a lot of benefits from introducing this kind of economic system seem to have Utilitarian ‘good for all’ bases and I think there is something lacking in terms of autonomy, or the importance placed onto a person’s physical body. Does the importance and autonomy of a person even extend to their physical body? If it does, why would it be any less significant to donate a kidney or liver, rather than to have sexual intercourse or commit suicide? Or am I committing the equivocation fallacy? I do think they attempt to defend the position of uninformed consent well. However I take issue with something potentially more fundamentally up for debate. 

Blog post 11

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 organ selling , OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about organ selling.

sex slavery

In my opinion human trafficking as well as sex slavery are two horrifying things. I do not understand how there is very limited number of laws against these types of things from happening in India. One of the key reasons why it is so hard to put a stop to sex slavery is due to the amount of people involved. In many cases the high level officials are paid to just not open their mouth and to simply look the other way. Often time’s women and young girls are held in captivity for years on end and when they are finally released into the world they do not know what to do. I think an argument can be made about what can truly be done to prevent these types of things from happening to men and women not just in India. Generally speaking I believe that we as Americans do not necessarily know the extent of these horrible things because it is not as prevalent in the media in our society. I do not think that there can be much of an argument made against human trafficking and sex slavery because of how many others too think it is disturbing.

Kristof and "priorities"

Near the end of Kristof's final article on sex slavery, he questions the US's foreign policy priorities that allow sex trafficking to go at least partially unchecked overseas. He claims that it would be a simple matter to allocate either more resources or more time to the matter, and further, that it would make a significant impact on sex trafficking within the countries that we press on the matter.

While I, of course, find any kind of human trafficking deplorable, I find myself forced to question Kristof's optimism on this issue. While he doesn't ask any of the impossible, he fails to provide something that focus could be taken off of in favor of putting more effort towards pushing world governments on the subject of human trafficking. I cannot put too much blame on him for this, as it is an editorial piece in essence, but making pleas for the world to change solves nothing. He himself admitted to committing an act that does nothing but encourage brothels of this type to bring more women in, and ends without a substantial argument. It is a good story, and one that is worth telling, but it shouldn't be taken as much more than that, as Kristof is ultimately unable to inject more substance than that into it.

Comprehensive approach

Nikhil Nigam brings up a key point about this issue when he talks about rehabilitation of former sex slaves, seeming to advocate a more comprehensive approach.  He says that the problem with trying to help them is that it would be very hard for an NGO, for example, to supply them with what they really need.  He says that they need “not necessarily a special institution but a family.”  He also says that we must try to show the girls that what happened was not necessarily “their individual black fate,” as many presume, but a larger societal problem. 

In trying to stop human trafficking, it can be easy to become in so caught up in righteous anger that all one wants to focus on is getting the bad guys and waging a sort of war.  It is easy to forget sometimes that the reason we really want to fight this war is to help the victims, and change the culture surrounding the issue.  In order to be successful, we must attack this issue on many fronts – policing the prostitution rings themselves, caring for victims rather than just setting them free and leaving them to fend for themselves, and working to raise awareness of what is going on for potential customers.  This last part may seem strange, but because the girls are often trained to convince people that they are completely voluntary prostitutes, it is important.  This is not to say anything about the morality of visiting prostitutes in general, there are many people who would do that, but would not participate if they knew they were engaging with a sex slave.

Blog 10

In general, I don’t agree with any sort of slavery that exists. Especially the sex trade.  To clarify, I mean the sex trade that one does not enter under their own free will, but are stolen into, or sold into.  Unfortunately, it is an industry in many parts of the world. 

The main reason I have a problem with this is that it takes women who are very young, and puts them into a powerless position, essentially taking advantage of them. To make things worse, fear and violence are used to control these women, and with disease running rampant due to unprotected sex in mostly developing parts of the world that lack healthcare to deal with these diseases, death is inevitable.  It’s truly despicable that violence and fear are used to keep these women in a dangerous servitude. I can’t dignify that specific sex trade by calling it a profession.

On Prostitution

Nikhil Nigam’s “From Nepal to Delhi” does not do nearly enough to combat the evils of sex slavery. While I appreciate the concerns raised, simply concluding that he hopes the Nepalese people will begin to have more constructive dialogue with Indian women’s groups in order to build a societal support system for minor girls. While these societal support systems are certainly needed and it is admirable for Nigam to want to build these systems, accepting a system that legalizes this sex trafficking is unacceptable. Nigam’s arguments rely on the premise that the problem is an “unavoidable evil” and that steps must be taken to fix the situation by improving the conditions of the women and not ending the system as a whole.

The Kristof articles raise an important issue about foreign governments and feminist groups not getting involved. The lack of awareness regarding this issue is particularly disturbing, and it is difficult to understand why this does not receive adequate support. I would extend Kristof’s argument to include pressuring foreign governments to ban all forms of prostitution. I believe legal prostitution perpetuates male dominance of women, and while it is clear that women who are kidnapped and sold into prostitution should be protected, I think it is equally important that women who “willingly” enter into prostitution must be taken out of such situations. Eliminating prostitution as a career choice and harshly cracking down on the men and women who foster such institutions is important in eliminating sexual violence against women worldwide. While the debate over whether or not women should be able to freely choose to begin a career is interesting, it does nothing for women who are victims of an unjust society who are forced into such a violent life. 

Comfort Women

After reading these articles I'm not quite sure where I would stand on the issue of comfort women. One one hand you have the legal regulated brothels in the US and Europe, but then you also have the  sex slaves throughout the world. If the industry could be completely regulated to make sure that nobody was being manipulated or forced into prostitution and the business was done in an inspected and clean area then I find no moral issues with prostitution. However, realistically this is not possible and the types of abuse described in the articles will happen no matter how much the industry is regulated. Another point though is that the human trafficking business isn't too concerned with legality and will still continue to force people to be sex slaves against their will. So while it doesn't quite seem right it might end up being better if there was at least some regulation in the industry.
          In the legal brothels in the US, specifically in Nevada, the standards are extremely strict and the women there took the job on their own volition in a clear state of mind (not a drug addict, or under duress). They have to undergo weekly STD screenings and background/health checks to make sure that they are healthy and also have a legal authority to go to if the owner of the brothel mistreats them. While this does seem to work somewhat well on a small scale in the US, it does not seem to work quite as well in countries like Cambodia, where it mentioned in the article that many of the women die of AIDS and cannot go to the police since the brothel owners bribe them. One of the articles actually showed that one of the freed slaves went back to the brothel in order to get access to meth, which shows the problem of some of the sex workers not being in a clear state of mind.
         So while it does initially seem like legalizing and regulating the industry would prevent abuse of the workers and put them in a safer environment, the articles showed that any regulations can be sidestepped through bribes and intimidation. However, even if prostitution was illegal there would still be a demand and sadly that demand would still be met. So while it's hard to find a good position on this issue I guess would finally decide in favor of legalizing it, so that even if the regulations are bypassed in many places, it would still be made overall safer for the sex workers. While there is the danger that legalizing this industry would cause more of a demand which would then cause more people to be brought in which would cause regulation of the industry to be less efficient, it seems like giving someone in that business someone they can go to for help in case of trouble outweighs this potential concern.

Solutions

My objection to these articles is in how they address the attempt to ‘fix’ sex slavery. They propose bandaid solutions for a serious social normatively driven problem. Within the Kristof article, “Stopping the Traffickers” he advocates the following solutions, “ (1) pressure on foreign governments to crack down on brothels with underage girls or those held against their will, (2) promotion of condoms to keep prostitutes alive and (3) above all, literacy and job programs to raise the status of girls and women”. By just pressuring the government and providing contraception I feel as if not enough action is being taken. That type of solution is not sustainable, and while important to minimize the damage done to these girls, without proper education and social reform the problem will perpetuate. I think that the most important of all three of these potential solutions is number three because it can help create a longer lasting more sustainable solution. I also would like to add that the education cannot just end with women’s empowerment, but must also address the corruption of the police force or the general attitude men are instilled with to just go along with this practice. Societal education is the begging of a potentially lasting solution. However, another point to consider lies within the Nagam article, where a potential solution suggested is to help promote conversation and dialogue about these issues amongst the Indian and Nepalese to adequately address the situation from within. I think promoting a solution from within is equally important because it adds a degree of cultural sensitivity as well as begins to eliminate the patriarchal and dependent aid. Finding cohesion between education and cultural sensitivity while avoiding imperialism and promoting justice should be the difficult yet overall goal. 

Sex Slavery

                I found the articles by Nicholas Kristoff to be really thought provoking. Usually when someone thinks of sex slavery, they usually imagine a terrible conditions and horrible people that abuse and beat the girls that are unfortunate enough to be there. When someone is presented with the opportunity to leave, they run far away. But in the case of Srey Mom, one of the girls the author freed from her brothel, she returned almost immediately. When she was freed again, the same thing happened. This is because the living conditions were not terrible. She speaks of how her close bond with the brothel owner or the “Mother” and how she is a good person, but I personally think that the way she treats the girls is unbelievably manipulative. By being nice to them and not abusing them and not forcing them to have sex when they are ill, she is essentially ensuring that they stay, or return. Many of the girls that are used as sex slaves are also addicted to drugs, mostly provided by the owners of the brothels. This also keeps them coming back even after they leave. I also found it interesting that when asked why they never went to the police, the girls said that if they would, they would be unlikely to do anything about it because they are usually getting some sort of favor from the brothel owners. This just goes to show how little regard the government tends to pay to the wellbeing of the women who are forced into sex slavery. While I think that what Kristoff did was noble by freeing the girls, that doesn’t help the issue, it only helps individuals. He touches on this idea at the end of this article as well. I agree with the ideas Kristoff puts forth in an attempt to stop the use of brothels with underage girls and those being held against their will, but I think that it will require a lot more than that. It requires a global outrage at the injustice being forced upon these girls.

Sex Slave

Sex slavery is travesty, but unfortunately is in the business of making big money and pleasure for others, these two combinations make the sale of women and the transport extremely worth it for the sellers and the cycle is quite hard to break. In places like Nigam, sex slavery is quite hard to break due to the fact that the routes are unmanned, the authorities cannot stop it because the area in which traveled is too large, and unfortunately more often than not they are paid off to not look. The lucrative nature and aspect in which is serves seems to hold priority over the actual dignity of human beings be treated like human beings.
The next issue we find is the fact that the girls are coerced and lied to during their captivity. They are convinced that they are in debt and that they must stay to pay things off. The psychological captivity adds to their physical captivity and causes more scarring and issues that need reparation. One thing that is essential to the progression of theses women back into society as well which is mentioned in the Nigam article is the rehabilitation that needs to occur. Rehabilitation and the teaching of these women needs to be made a priority if there is to be progress made in stopping this. Rehabilitation is key simply because if there is awareness then more people will understand the dangers and help to stop, and with the more people aware there will be less people at risk.

Rainforest or Sex Slaves?

I think one of the main arguments brought up in the NYT articles is the lack of attention that the slave trade gets, especially from groups and politicians in the United States. The author criticizes groups in the US, especially American women’s group that do hardly anything to acknowledge or combat the slave trade around the world. Additionally, the author points out, “there is far less international effort to save these children than to, say, save the Brazilian rain forest.” As someone who has long felt connected to the environmental movement, this has been something I have thought a lot about. I sympathize more with the environmental movement than I do other groups/political parties that were criticized in this piece and thus will focus my blog on this aspect. I have come to firmly believe that social issues are environmental issues and vice versa, it just depends on how we frame environmental issues. I am currently much more in favor of the environmental justice movement than the classic environmental movement in the United States. The classical environmental movement essentially dichotomizes humans and nature, so under this framework,  Srey Neth, Srey Mom and innumerable other women, are not considered to groups such as The Nature Conservancy or Sierra Club. This isn’t to say that the people in those organizations do not care people, but they view their mission is about conserving pristine wilderness or endangered species, not helping people. In contrast, the environmental justice movement insists on the environment consisting of a whole ecosystem that includes the biophysical environment, the built environment, and the social environment; or where we live, work and play. So, under this framework, the struggle of women treated as sex slaves is something that should be something movements in the US address. That being said, with such a seemingly broad range of things under the umbrella of environmental justice, how should/can we triage and achieve real goals? Clearly the sex slave is something that deserves real, pressing attention. This is something I think a lot about as well, and am still in the process of trying to understand what breaking the human-nature dichotomy truly means. At least for starters, I think such a move could bring people together at the local, national and global level. There would still have to be special interest groups but I think this would bridge the gap between seemingly disparate groups to build a powerful movement. When I think about how rampant issues such as the sex trade or deforestation are today, there seems that there must be some sort of underlying institutions that are causing such disparities and environmental and human assaults around the world. Maybe bringing people together because we at least have an environment, could be a place to mobilize and start understanding and facing the systemic problems as a global community that enable the fates of girls like Srey Mom and countless others. 

sex slavery

Connor Newlin
It seems there is not much argument on the subject of sex slavery because most people will agree that it is wrong. It is illegal in most countries but often times we lack the means to combat it or simply don't heavily enforce the issue. Unlike the previously discussed comfort women, sex slavery can not be justified as a legitimate practice that benefits society in some way. I believe that women with no other options turn to this practice simply as a means of getting by safely. There are often times that women are taken care of better and are safer under the protection and watch of a pimp then they are alone and poor in the street. It is understandable that some women are afraid of and even don't want their freedom because all they know is a brutal poverty stricken world where they are treated like trash outside of the prostitution market. While working as a sex slave they have a roof over their heads and meals to eat every day. The article in the NY Times discussed rescue but the important factor in the halt of sex slavery is prevention. Once inside women are at the mercy of the system and it is VERY difficult to get out with things like debt, drugs, and shame keeping women in the market. Towards the end of the article it was discussed that government intervention is necessary to crack down on this illegal trafficking of women and I agree very much on this point. The issue is not always stressed because women don't voice that they hate it and want to get out because this world of sex slavery is the best that they know.

Sex Slavery

In my blog post today, I would like to question how officials can expect these children, these minors, to tell the truth, to throw these people under the bus, and say that they were coerced into sex slavery. It is very naive of the Indian officials to just take the word of a 15 year old girl, who for 5 years was essentially brain washed into believing that she owes a debt, that she has never accrued, and that paying it back can only occur through the sacrifice of their body.

Children can be easily coerced and they can be forced to lie. Trying to imagine what these children have been through, why would these officials expect these children to tell the truth? To defy this brainwashing that has become so intrinsic to them - that essentially keep them alive - wouldn't be conducive to their survival (even if it does more good than they can possibly realize). These children know how to act to keep themselves from receiving punishment and the punishment from these pimps is far worse than lying to the authorities.

As for those who would oppose this idea of brainwashing, referencing to the study of Robert Jay Lifton, he was able to determine steps to brainwashing during the late 1950s. These steps are: 

1. Assault on identity
2. Guilt
3. Self-betrayal
4. Breaking point
5. Leniency
6. Compulsion to confess
7. Channeling of guilt
8. Releasing of guilt
9. Progress and harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth

(http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brainwashing1.htm) 

For those within sex trafficking, just take a step by step walk through this.

1. By throwing these children into sex trafficking, their identity is attacked. They are not young girls who deserve a childhood. 

2. They tell these girls that if they do not participate -  their village suffers, their home benefits from their service, that they have a debt that must be paid.

3. The girls begin to agree and accept this idea that they owe their village or that they have a debt to pay. 

4. These girls reach their breaking point as described as:The target may have lost his grip on reality and have the feeling of being completely lost and alone. When the target reaches his breaking point, his sense of self is pretty much up for grabs -- he has no clear understanding of who he is or what is happening to him. At this point, the agent sets up the temptation to convert to another belief system that will save the target from his misery. - these girls become homesick and attempt to accept this life as a sex slave.

5. The 'house mothers' are kind to the girls when they get homesick and  "who had never forced her to have sex when she was ill" (Kristof). They help them. In this sick and twisted way, they get these girls to believe that they are kind to them in such a grievous state of emergency.

6.As a definition: "The target may feel a desire to reciprocate the kindness offered to him, and at this point, the agent may present the possibility of confession as a means to relieving guilt and pain." The girls may feel this need to return the favor by doing their service without running away or fuss. 

7. "The target's guilt has lost all meaning" - the girls have no meaning in what they do - just that they do it. They continue to do. The discussion between Kristof and one of the sex slaves - she just casually answered questions without much grief, just an odd acceptance. 

8.The girls may find refuge in accepting the ideals of prostitution to escape the shame and guilt they feel being a prostitute. 

9.The pimps then offer the girls a 'good' way to live - that by being lent out to others for nights of sexual acts is good. That they are slowly paying off their debt. 

10. This last step can only be shown when the girl has the ability to leave. Srey Mom stated that she was so frightened to leave because she was afraid that her family and village would not accept her back. She was so afraid that she contemplated staying in the institution that accepted her. The institution that brainwashed her into thinking that what she does is acceptable - while her old belief system (her community) may react unknowingly. 

Just to reiterate my point, these girls become brainwashed, either through an abstract point of view or through actual force. I do not see how the officials( who seek to arrest these pimps) could rely on the victims of this brainwashing trade. They need other means to attack this problem - to arrest these pimps.