Trade with countries with no child labor laws or lax safety enforcement is not unethical. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Trade with countries with no child labor laws or lax safety enforcement is not unethical.

Debate Information

When the United States was a developing country, it had no restrictions on child labor, minimum wages regulations, or mandates regarding safety in the work place. So be it for the US to pass regulations that tailor to those ideals, as they are not necessarily bad ideals. But to expect other nations to abide by those same ethics is disingenuous and only puts our nation at a disadvantage to other developing nations who are willing to forego any such regulations for the purpose of keeping their labor costs down thereby making their country more affordable to do business in. 

It is unethical for developed countries to impose sanctions on countries who are doing the exact same things the already developed nations needed to do themselves to become developed nations. Secondary to being unethical to impose sanctions, it is also an economic policy that is disadvantageous for our own country because it then raises the cost of living for everybody in our country because we are forced to buy from nations with higher labor costs, and that translates over to higher prices on everything.      
CYDdhartaBlastcat



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 149 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Not unethical?

    We consumers in the west don't seem too concerned about ethics when it comes to who we trade with.
    Just think of the countless items you can buy that are marked, "Made in China."
    piloteer
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 286 Pts   -  
    So... what you're saying is that it's not only ethical to NOT trade with countries that do have child labor and work safety laws, but that it would hinder the U.S economy if they don't trade with countries without child labor laws and safety laws. If I hadn't seen anything du-mb today.
    piloteer
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 7
    @Luigi7255

    I’m in no way saying it is unethical to trade with countries that do have child labor laws and minimum wage and safety laws. It is absolutely fine for companies to trade with countries with higher labor costs because those countries may have a higher quality of labor, or the companies may have a higher standard of “fairness” for their work force, which isn’t an inherently bad standard to have. 

    What I’m actually saying is that it isn’t unethical to trade with countries that don’t have child labor laws or strict safety rules and minimum wage mandates. My argument is that restricting trade with countries that have lax rules regarding safety, child labor, and no fair wage mandates would hinder the US economy. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    I think that child labor laws themselves are an infringement on people's rights. Where I grew up, a lot of kids did odd (legal) jobs voluntarily: it was considered a useful part of growing up. As long as children are not forced to work against their will, there is no reason to outlaw them working. Same goes for safety enforcement laws: an employee signs a voluntary contract when applying for a job, and, as long as the employee and the employer both agree on the terms, there is nothing for the state here to do.

    As such, trade with such countries should, if anything, be encouraged! :)

    On a more relevant issue, I also think that trade with countries with abysmal human right records should be fully allowed, and, also, encouraged. When someone is being oppressed by their dictator and desperately tries to get out of incredible poverty, the worst thing you can do to them is to deny them opportunity to work for you. "We dislike your system, so, to express our disapproval, we are going to make your life more miserable than it could be". Not a very sound logic as far as humanity is concerned.

    Perhaps there are grounds for outlawing trade with particular individuals - say, Kim Jung Un is an international criminal, and buying something from him is essentially buying stolen and extorted goods knowingly. If you saw someone stealing a car before your very eyes and then offer to buy that car, then something is wrong here. Again, I personally do not think that the government should intervene here, but, at least, there are valid reasons for intervention here.

    But outlawing trade with residents of dictatorships serves no purpose, benefits no one and damages everyone. The only people who can possibly benefit from this are domestic special interest groups afraid of competition.
    piloteer
  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: freedom may not exist

    @MayCaesar It can be a fallacy that workers freely agreed to work for an exploitative employer if the people have a need of jobs and cannot refuse employment because they need money to support their families. The need to provide food and shelter for their families infringes on their freedom.
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -   edited September 8
    Isn’t it “wonderful “ we have a post totally supporting the abuse of children but dressing it up as an act of extremes kindness and a service to all …….

    Your post wouldn’t be out of place in a newspaper in a gentleman’s club in Victorian times extolling the virtues of “hard work” and the benefits of such 

    You and MC would fit in perfectly in the Deep South in 1829…..


    Governor Stephen D. Miller in his 1829 speech to South Carolina's legislators:

    Slavery is not a national evil; on the contrary, it is a national benefit. The agricultural wealth of the country is found in those states owning slaves, and a great portion of the revenue of the government is derived from the products of slave labor—Slavery exists in some form everywhere, and it is not of much consequence in a philosophical point of view, whether it be voluntary or involuntary


    We spent years trying to outlaw this in our so called civilised  countries , you and MC think it a tragedy we’ve done away with opportunity …..






    It’s remarkable when one gets well heeled Americans getting into a rage at the idea of a minimun wage in their own country and  defending the “right “ of billionaire employers to squeeze the lowest paid their own societies and across the world yet re-brand it as something wonderful …….

    Of course such systems are not for Americans or those in stable countries but only for those in third word countries but why not dress it up as act of extreme fairness and entirely just …..

    Their World …….

    At least 85 million children do very hazardous work – forced labour, trafficking and bonded labour.

    Mining is one of the most dangerous jobs across the world but about one million children work in mines in appalling conditions that can lead to injury or death.

    Children also work on building sites and in brick-making factories without proper health and safety rules. Children are at risk from machinery, chemicals, harsh working conditions and lots of other hazards.

    Those who are forced to become soldiers or are slaves are treated very badly and suffer terrible physical and mental harm and abuse, as well as sexual exploitation. Child domestic workers are also at risk of sexual abuse and violence.








    piloteerall4acttPlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @Jean

    That is precisely what voluntary interactions are: two or more people coming together to satisfy their needs through cooperation. The worker accepting the job preferred it to all available alternatives and fully consented to the terms. The employer could refuse to extend the job offer, and then this worker would be worse off. There is no fallacy here. If the worker does not want to depend on "exploitative" employers, they are free to build a farm with their own bare hands and provide for themselves, which is what humans have done for millennia. They, however, want more from life, so they look for more attractive options - options that would not be there if economical interaction with those countries was widely considered to be unethical and employers from the developed world followed suit.

    You last statement, however, is a fallacy. A "need" cannot "infringe" on anyone's freedom. You do not and cannot have the freedom to not be a subject to the laws of the Universe. If you genuinely believe that hunger, cold or gravity infringe on your freedom, then go ahead and sue the Universe.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  
    Jean said:
    @MayCaesar It can be a fallacy that workers freely agreed to work for an exploitative employer if the people have a need of jobs and cannot refuse employment because they need money to support their families. The need to provide food and shelter for their families infringes on their freedom.
    Not really sure how you're describing freedom here, but I get the feeling it has something to do with predeterminism vs free will. The contours and parameters of my proposal at the top of the page do not change in any manner at all if either free will, or determinism are true.  
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Jean

    If you genuinely believe that hunger, cold or gravity infringe on your freedom, then go ahead and sue the Universe.
    @Jean

    My uncle is a very good lawyer who may be willing to represent you. He got the universe to settle my case. Just sayin. 
    MayCaesar
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 8
    @Dee

    I get the feeling that you think I believe the US, or other developed nations should legalize child labor, which is absolutely false from top to bottom. If all countries on earth outlawed child labor, that too would be groovy as far as I see. Regardless of any countries decisions on labor policy, we all as separate countries still have the ability to compete with other countries for business based on our labor policies. I don't condone child labor in any manner, and I firmly believe schooling should be held in higher regard than work should for a child's upbringing. Full stop!!!!

    That being said, it is disingenuous to believe that since we the "civilized" do not allow such things in our countries, then we shall thus expect all other nations to follow suit, lest we forbid our citizens to do business with such countries. There's a two fold problem with that reasoning. 

    The first being that we absolutely ignore the fact that undeveloped countries may not have the capability to fund proper schooling for their children. And when we consider this, the logic of barring any businesses to do business with countries that cannot afford nationwide schooling becomes even more difficult to defend because barring business with those countries does nothing but take away another source of income for those struggling families when their children cannot work. Not only does it not help them, but it worsens their situation because of that lost income for struggling families, or a lack of funding for schools because their country cannot raise enough income because of a lack of business. One could easily argue here that the goal of helping those countries to make enough income to fund schooling for children would better be served by allowing business with countries that do have child labor because they obviously need the extra income. 

    The other problem with your retort is of an ethical sort. Are we really being ethical if we as developed nations expect all other nations to abide by our policies of economics because we say it's right, and that's pretty much all we have to go on as far as our ethical reasoning, only because we say it's right? Leave us not forget that many developed countries had child labor when they were in the process of becoming developed nations themselves, and yet we expect other nations to not allow it, not only just because we say they should, but they must also do so when we say it's wrong, but forget to mention that we also did those things. In your fight for your clarion call of global ethics, you've totally ignored the ethics of sovereignty. In this case, the sovereignty of other nations.             

    The anticapitalist tone of your argument almost implies that all work itself is oppression, or all least all work that is done for individual economic gain as opposed to economic gain for the collective, and it seems you think there should be no boundaries for how far reaching this global cooperative should be implemented. It seems you want to implement a global commune where all wealth is redistributed across all borders. There are far too many countries that would reject that kind of economic policy, and almost all countries would find it to be oppressive to not recognize their sovereignty within their border. Regardless, I'm really not sure how my proposal changes whether businesses from socialist countries pursue business relations with countries that allow child labor. Even in your woodstock like utopia of employee owned corporations came to fruition, I still believe those types of cooperative corporations that are owned by all the employees should be allowed to do business with countries that allow child labor.       
       
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    I get the feeling that you think I believe the US, or other developed nations should legalize child labor, which is absolutely false from top to bottom. If all countries on earth outlawed child labor, that too would be groovy as far as I see. Regardless of any countries decisions on labor policy, we all as separate countries still have the ability to compete with other countries for business based on our labor policies. I don't condone child labor in any manner, and I firmly believe schooling should be held in higher regard than work should for a child's upbringing. Full stop!!!!



    No I don’t think that but I do know you and others on here strongly resist the idea of a basic minimum wage in the US am I correct in that regarding your position on such?

    Also you’ve spent a fair amount of time supporting the appalling practice of  child labour and use arguments that wouldn’t be out of place in the Deep South regards slavery 

    That being said, it is disingenuous to believe that since we the "civilized" do not allow such things in our countries, then we shall thus expect all other nations to follow suit, lest we forbid our citizens to do business with such countries. There's a two fold problem with that reasoning. 

    Here you go saying you condone child labour and now again making a case for it 

    The first being that we absolutely ignore the fact that undeveloped countries may not have the capability to fund proper schooling for their children. And when we consider this, the logic of barring any businesses to do business with countries that cannot afford nationwide schooling becomes even more difficult to defend because barring business with those countries does nothing but take away another source of income for those struggling families when their children cannot work. Not only does it not help them, but it worsens their situation because of that lost income for struggling families, or a lack of funding for schools because their country cannot raise enough income because of a lack of business. One could easily argue here that the goal of helping those countries to make enough income to fund schooling for children would better be served by allowing business with countries that do have child labor because they obviously need the extra income. 

    The other problem with your retort is of an ethical sort. Are we really being ethical if we as developed nations expect all other nations to abide by our policies of economics because we say it's right, and that's pretty much all we have to go on as far as our ethical reasoning, only because we say it's right? Leave us not forget that many developed countries had child labor when they were in the process of becoming developed nations themselves, and yet we expect other nations to not allow it, not only just because we say they should, but they must also do so when we say it's wrong, but forget to mention that we also did those things. In your fight for your clarion call of global ethics, you've totally ignored the ethics of sovereignty. In this case, the sovereignty of other nations.             


    “The ethics of sovereignty” please explain to me how that in any way can be used to justify the applying mistreatment of children in these countries?



    The anticapitalist tone of your argument almost implies that all work itself is oppression, or all least all work that is done for individual economic gain as opposed to economic gain for the collective,


    Here we go again the same tired argument nearly every American makes , when I say that free  education  , healthcare , housing , social welfare plus a decent minimun wage should be a given in any society Americans screech “ he anti capitalist “ followed by “he’s a Commie “ …….I live in a capitalist society which believes in social policies what is so hard for Americans to understand in this?

    Also I’ve worked all my life for others and mostly ( now) for myself , so where you’re going with your “collective “ and “anti capitalist “ slur is beyond me 

    and it seems you think there should be no boundaries for how far reaching this global cooperative should be implemented. It seems you want to implement a global commune where all wealth is redistributed across all borders. 

    No I didn’t say that at all but please go on telling me what I propose seeing as you know 

    There are far too many countries that would reject that kind of economic policy, and almost all countries would find it to be oppressive to not recognize their sovereignty within their border. Regardless, I'm really not sure how my proposal changes whether businesses from socialist countries pursue business relations with countries that allow child labor. Even in your woodstock like utopia of employee owned corporations came to fruition, I still believe those types of cooperative corporations that are owned by all the employees should be allowed to do business with countries that allow child labor.       

    Thanks for telling me what I think and posting it up , no point in me even responding seeing as you’ve done it for me 
  • @Dee
    No I don’t think that but I do know you and others on here strongly resist the idea of a basic minimum wage in the US am I correct in that regarding your position on such?
    No, you are wrong. I believe a legal minimum wage is zero. No wage at all.
    Also you’ve spent a fair amount of time supporting the appalling practice of  child labour 
    By a constitutional state of the union educational practice most often violate child labor law untested by notices of violation in governing.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 9
    @Dee

    You've gotten your argument in an emotional tangle, so let me help you straighten it out some. First, it is not an aspect of my proposal to allow businesses to have business relations with other businesses that employ slave labor in any manner, but most especially child exploitation. I do not believe countries should do business with other countries that allow slave labor. Exploitation of children is an entirely different subject than what is being discussed here. It seems as though you think exploitation of children only happens in third world countries, but sadly it happens just as much in developed nations. And unless you live in a country that is totally devoid of that type evil, then I see no reason why you would automatically have the higher moral ground. Especially since I do not think any kind of slave labor or child exploitation is ethical in any situation ever, nor are those things reflected in my proposal. 

    My counterpoint went untouched by you. If a country has not the economic resources to ensure all children are schooled, how does taking away the extra income that children bring actually help that country with its struggle to fund schools? If children are another source of income for struggling families, how does taking that income away help those children, and those families get out of poverty? There are millions of people who live in the US who have immigrated from countries where they had to work as children themselves, and it is precisely those immigrants who are the most economically self reliant people in our country today, and it is those very same immigrants who use the least amount of government assistance.        

    I thought the concept of sovereignty was straightforward enough. Just because you believe economic policies must be governed in a certain manner, it doesn't mean it's ethical to try to make every other country do it the same way. If Switzerland decided to not do business with the US because abortion they allow abortions, it could put Switzerland at a disadvantage economically, and all for the sake of their conviction none the less. They would seem to have a valid ethical reasoning for that decision, just like you do, but they cannot expect every other country to follow suit just because they claim it's the right thing to do. You pack me in with all the southern slaveowners, but you're the one who thinks western ethics must be implemented globally and it's OK to bully them if they don't. If you look to the top of this page, you'll see the first person who disagreemy argument, and they disagreed with my proposal before anybody commented on this thread.  It's because they would agree with you that we should be bullying other countries into following by our ethical standards.     
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -   edited September 10
    You don’t have to untangle anything thank you, I’m not sure of your position as you seem to contradict yourself consistently ….

    I found it amusing you used the old chestnut “ emotional tangle “ when the only one getting teary eyed and emotional is you in your appeals to the founding of the good ole USA and the glories of child labour and exploitation in times past 

    What I’m actually saying is that it isn’t unethical to trade with countries that don’t have child labor laws or strict safety rules and minimum wage mandates……

    This is the whole essence of your argument tell me in your view what is “ethical “ about the appalling abuse of children who suffer under these conditions ?

    Yes I think it’s fine to “bully “ nations that abuse children and point out why I’m bullying them , it worked with slavery as governments around the world abolished the practice yet using  your logic this “bullying “ is totally unfair and should be resisted 

    It’s truly incredible that I who am against the horrific practices of child labour is the bully and others to use your reasoning are actually “ethical “ 

    We are living in a world where abuses now are normalized and justified and called  ethical and opponents of such branded “bullies “ …..

    As usual being American you appeal to the founding of your nation and the glories of child labour and the lack of decent conditions for those unfortunates 

    You also use the argument that child labour and exploitation happens in other countries in in my country child labour is not a thing , minimum wage is set across the country so at least we are trying most European countries do that’s the difference , you are from a country where supporters of a minimum are rabidly attacked and as nation actively encourage the exploitation  of the poor , Texas has a minimun  wage of 7:25 dollars and when I attacked the appalling minimum wage rates in the US every person who came on site ( American Christian ) robustly defended and totally approved of such , so your stance is totally consistent with your fellow citizens sadly 
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 10
    piloteer said:
    @Luigi7255

    I’m in no way saying it is unethical to trade with countries that do have child labor laws and minimum wage and safety laws. It is absolutely fine for companies to trade with countries with higher labor costs because those countries may have a higher quality of labor, or the companies may have a higher standard of “fairness” for their work force, which isn’t an inherently bad standard to have. 

    What I’m actually saying is that it isn’t unethical to trade with countries that don’t have child labor laws or strict safety rules and minimum wage mandates. My argument is that restricting trade with countries that have lax rules regarding safety, child labor, and no fair wage mandates would hinder the US economy. 

    just because it would hinder the US economy does not make practices ethical. Seems to me that some people would rather make money than protect children.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  
    Blastcat said:
    piloteer said:
    @Luigi7255

    I’m in no way saying it is unethical to trade with countries that do have child labor laws and minimum wage and safety laws. It is absolutely fine for companies to trade with countries with higher labor costs because those countries may have a higher quality of labor, or the companies may have a higher standard of “fairness” for their work force, which isn’t an inherently bad standard to have. 

    What I’m actually saying is that it isn’t unethical to trade with countries that don’t have child labor laws or strict safety rules and minimum wage mandates. My argument is that restricting trade with countries that have lax rules regarding safety, child labor, and no fair wage mandates would hinder the US economy. 

    just because it would hinder the US economy does not make practices ethical. Seems to me that some people would rather make money than protect children.
    I'm not saying it is ethical for countries to allow child labor, but disallowing trade with those countries is equally unethical. Obviously if these countries have child labor, it is because there are struggling families who need to have their children work or they won't make ends meet. How does stopping those struggling families from having the extra income their children bring home help their financial situation in any manner? If poverty is a factor (probably the biggest factor) that creates the need for families to make their children work, barring the children from working will only exacerbate the poverty.

    The hope here is that these families will one day have enough money to not have their children work and instead go to school. If a country needs to fund schooling for all of its children, it needs to tax all of its citizens to fund schooling. But if all of these families are to poor to be able to take on that extra economic burden of a school tax, then restricting those families from having the extra income that children bring will do nothing but harm the goal of funding for education. Because of that, I see no ethical righteousness in disallowing trade with countries that allow child labor.       
  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: confused

    @piloteer I have no idea why you mentioned me with this response.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited September 11
    @Dee

    If you think all countries on earth must abide by your ethical standards, which so far has only been defended by your reasoning of "because I say so", then it should be only you who is responsible for any funding or warring needed to do that bullying yourself. We the living should only abide by your standards if we willingly agree with your standards. We have a right to not have to answer to every clarion call to arms for everyone else's ethical global mission. 

    You have yet to address my argument of how barring struggling families from having the extra income that children bring will do nothing but harm those families economically. If those families need their children to work, it is because of extreme poverty, not because they just like the idea of having their children work. If and when the government comes to collect taxes from those families to pay for things like nationwide schooling, they won't have the money needed to pay those taxes. So there's no schooling for children, and they remain in poverty indefinitely.

    I do not concern myself with trying to not sound like a typical American blowhard, because I'm not ashamed of being one when I am being one. But one thing I will never capitulate to is the elitist nihilist rhetoric that is all too common in my country. The kind of elitism that causes one to argue that even though children who are working come from extremely poor families, those children should not be allowed to work. And even when those elitist Americans are confronted with the fact that their "ethical bullying" will make those families even more poor, and in debt indefinitely, they still say that's OK. So if we're going to talk about the typical American blowhard who is perfectly comfortable with allowing poor families in third world countries remain poor indefinitely because not everyone can own a house on the hill, and they instead try to mask their ethics with a facade of pushing for children's rights, ya, I'm not that kind of American blowhard! But would you fit in with those types of Americans Dee?   
  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    Jean said:
    @MayCaesar It can be a fallacy that workers freely agreed to work for an exploitative employer if the people have a need of jobs and cannot refuse employment because they need money to support their families. The need to provide food and shelter for their families infringes on their freedom.
    Not really sure how you're describing freedom here, but I get the feeling it has something to do with predeterminism vs free will. The contours and parameters of my proposal at the top of the page do not change in any manner at all if either free will, or determinism are true.  





    No, I am not thinking of predeterminism but I am thinking of free will. When people are poor and considered by an employer as merely a factor of production then a worker may not have much of a choice. People will accept any job to get food and shelter for himself and his family. If the alternative is malnutrition and sickness then there is no sense calling this freely accepting employment. There is no real choice.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    Blastcat said:
    piloteer said:
    @Luigi7255

    I’m in no way saying it is unethical to trade with countries that do have child labor laws and minimum wage and safety laws. It is absolutely fine for companies to trade with countries with higher labor costs because those countries may have a higher quality of labor, or the companies may have a higher standard of “fairness” for their work force, which isn’t an inherently bad standard to have. 

    What I’m actually saying is that it isn’t unethical to trade with countries that don’t have child labor laws or strict safety rules and minimum wage mandates. My argument is that restricting trade with countries that have lax rules regarding safety, child labor, and no fair wage mandates would hinder the US economy. 

    just because it would hinder the US economy does not make practices ethical. Seems to me that some people would rather make money than protect children.
    I'm not saying it is ethical for countries to allow child labor, but disallowing trade with those countries is equally unethical. Obviously if these countries have child labor, it is because there are struggling families who need to have their children work or they won't make ends meet. How does stopping those struggling families from having the extra income their children bring home help their financial situation in any manner? If poverty is a factor (probably the biggest factor) that creates the need for families to make their children work, barring the children from working will only exacerbate the poverty.

    The hope here is that these families will one day have enough money to not have their children work and instead go to school. If a country needs to fund schooling for all of its children, it needs to tax all of its citizens to fund schooling. But if all of these families are to poor to be able to take on that extra economic burden of a school tax, then restricting those families from having the extra income that children bring will do nothing but harm the goal of funding for education. Because of that, I see no ethical righteousness in disallowing trade with countries that allow child labor.       

    In your opinion, is child labour moral or not?
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  
    @Jean

    Not saying you're incorrect about your claim, there is a mountain of variables that can change what your saying. For instance, someone's skill set. The more skilled, or educated one is, the more opportunities they will have. And since it takes education to help people receive better employment opportunities, I feel education should be held in high regard in all countries. My proposal does not change that.      
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  
    Blastcat said:
    piloteer said:
    Blastcat said:
    piloteer said:
    @Luigi7255

    I’m in no way saying it is unethical to trade with countries that do have child labor laws and minimum wage and safety laws. It is absolutely fine for companies to trade with countries with higher labor costs because those countries may have a higher quality of labor, or the companies may have a higher standard of “fairness” for their work force, which isn’t an inherently bad standard to have. 

    What I’m actually saying is that it isn’t unethical to trade with countries that don’t have child labor laws or strict safety rules and minimum wage mandates. My argument is that restricting trade with countries that have lax rules regarding safety, child labor, and no fair wage mandates would hinder the US economy. 

    just because it would hinder the US economy does not make practices ethical. Seems to me that some people would rather make money than protect children.
    I'm not saying it is ethical for countries to allow child labor, but disallowing trade with those countries is equally unethical. Obviously if these countries have child labor, it is because there are struggling families who need to have their children work or they won't make ends meet. How does stopping those struggling families from having the extra income their children bring home help their financial situation in any manner? If poverty is a factor (probably the biggest factor) that creates the need for families to make their children work, barring the children from working will only exacerbate the poverty.

    The hope here is that these families will one day have enough money to not have their children work and instead go to school. If a country needs to fund schooling for all of its children, it needs to tax all of its citizens to fund schooling. But if all of these families are to poor to be able to take on that extra economic burden of a school tax, then restricting those families from having the extra income that children bring will do nothing but harm the goal of funding for education. Because of that, I see no ethical righteousness in disallowing trade with countries that allow child labor.       

    In your opinion, is child labour moral or not?
    Not!!

     And the only way to stop the poverty that allows child labor to continue is to allow the struggling families to have their children work so they will not continue to be so poor and will one day have enough wealth to not have their children work. 
  • JeanJean 76 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: information

    piloteer said:
    @Jean

    Not saying you're incorrect about your claim, there is a mountain of variables that can change what your saying. For instance, someone's skill set. The more skilled, or educated one is, the more opportunities they will have. And since it takes education to help people receive better employment opportunities, I feel education should be held in high regard in all countries. My proposal does not change that.      
    In poor states and countries and with changes in the economy that are unpredictable, regardless of education or skills, there may not be jobs available if it is left to the free market. Capitalism has failed people in so many countries and states. Unemployment is a curse in so many places.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  
    Jean said:
    piloteer said:
    @Jean

    Not saying you're incorrect about your claim, there is a mountain of variables that can change what your saying. For instance, someone's skill set. The more skilled, or educated one is, the more opportunities they will have. And since it takes education to help people receive better employment opportunities, I feel education should be held in high regard in all countries. My proposal does not change that.      
    In poor states and countries and with changes in the economy that are unpredictable, regardless of education or skills, there may not be jobs available if it is left to the free market. Capitalism has failed people in so many countries and states. Unemployment is a curse in so many places.
    So if there's no job opportunities in a specific country, then we would scarcely need to worry about child labor there, do we?!?!? And exactly how is it that communism, or some other policy other than capitalism will be able to create opportunities better than capitalism?     
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @piloteer


    If you think all countries on earth must abide by your ethical standards, which so far has only been defended by your reasoning of "because I say so", then it should be only you who is responsible for any funding or warring needed to do that bullying yourself. We the living should only abide by your standards if we willingly agree with your standards. We have a right to not have to answer to every clarion call to arms for everyone else's ethical global mission. 


    I don’t just think I know they should , that is if one considers the eradication of child abuse an  ethical concern you don’t as you admit in a world where these abuses are normalized  by people like you you gave a right to do so as you admit above  

    You have yet to address my argument of how barring struggling families from having the extra income that children bring will do nothing but harm those families economically. If those families need their children to work, it is because of extreme poverty, not because they just like the idea of having their children work. If and when the government comes to collect taxes from those families to pay for things like nationwide schooling, they won't have the money needed to pay those taxes. So there's no schooling for children, and they remain in poverty indefinitely.

    Exactly as I said before your arguments are similar to a slavers in times past “ these people from Africa are fed and watered 3 times daily and have a roof over their heads if they remained in Africa famine or disease would have claimed them”

    I don’t know the solution to these age old problems but various governments and people are at least trying , you just shrug your shoulders and say “so be it “

    I do not concern myself with trying to not sound like a typical American blowhard, because I'm not ashamed of being one when I am being one. But one thing I will never capitulate to is the elitist nihilist rhetoric that is all too common in my country. The kind of elitism that causes one to argue that even though children who are working come from extremely poor families, those children should not be allowed to work.

    Wow! Didn’t know child labour was a thing in the US 

     And even when those elitist Americans are confronted with the fact that their "ethical bullying" will make those families even more poor, and in debt indefinitely, they still say that's OK. 

    Again it demonstrates how far gone and indoctrinated you are into actually believing the abuse of children is laudable 

    So if we're going to talk about the typical American blowhard who is perfectly comfortable with allowing poor families in third world countries remain poor indefinitely because not everyone can own a house on the hill, and they instead try to mask their ethics with a facade of pushing for children's rights, ya, I'm not that kind of American blowhard! But would you fit in with those types of Americans Dee?   


    Here is what you said and cannot defend as it clearly shows you’re all for the abuse of children and actually claim I’m against children’s rights and you’re a staunch supporter of such ……WOW! 

    What I’m actually saying is that it isn’t unethical to trade with countries that don’t have child labor laws or strict safety rules and minimum wage mandates…

    This is the whole essence of your argument tell me in your view what is “ethical “ about the appalling abuse of children who suffer under these conditions ?

    You’ve actually admitted the appalling abuse of children in these cases is justified and a right because a greater suffering might happen if parents and governments are denied this …..Welcome to the stuff of Orwellian nightmares 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch