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.