Thread: Child Labour: Is It Really That Bad?

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Truthbearer

the only way we can rid ourselves from the greatest evils of society, is for it to collapse against itself...for it to be rebuilt from the ashes, having learned from all of our mistakes...

And from a strictly utilitarian point of view, I would argue that child labour is a better alternative than the entire collapse of modern society.[/b]

I don't know much about utilitarianism or whatever, but I do know that it is time that we start again. I don't necesarily mean that civilization must fall...just the system. If it is inevitable to end one without the other (meaning that the system has been as effective as they could have ever wished), then I still think it is a necesary evil....social justice is something that is worth the effort of it all

Utilitarianism, "the greatest good for the greatest number" or "the greatest good over the least pain". Basically it's a theory that says the morality of any action of law is defined by its utility. (Utility, referring to pleasure/preference/or referring to an objective set of values)

--------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to bring it up again Ophelia...lol. Sounds like some good reading you have there though, I haven't actually read any of Bentham or Mill's stuff...unfortunately, but I hope to soon. I mostly just remember what I was taught in philosophy class. It probably sticks out in my mind because of the whole head kicking thing.

Just another reason that you shouldn't have yourself stuffed and put on display I guess.

For some reason I feel like an on-off Utilitarianist. I guess I am only one when it suits everyone around me including me. I just decide things on what would best uphold Democracy. That is how my choices are made in my brain.

Originally posted by bradybaker
I just realized the possibility that my entire wardrobe could have been made by the same kid somewhere in the Phillippines. But then I thought to myself...is child labour really that bad?

Think about it, without those jobs at Nike, Abercrombie & Fitch or the Gap they would have NO money at all. Twelve cents a day might seem pretty barbaric to us, but twelve US cents can go pretty far in a country that is a lot less fortunate that us. If you ask me, some money is better than no money at all.

Ok, yes there is a difference between Child Labour and Child Slavery. I worked on the farm when I was a kid, I loved it. What you are referring to above is Child Slavery (please don't tell me you would accept 12 cents a day). Throughout the thread you have said "there is a difference between child labour and slavery, the media only portrays the worst etc etc". What I want to know, is are you talking about Slavery or Labour? The thread is talking about Child Labour, but it is clear in the first post that you are referring to Child Slavery. You can't pick both.

Child Labour where they barely get enough money to feed themselves, thus forcing childeren into sweatshops at a very young age is deplorable. I mean the American line of "bring freedom and democracy to the world" would be great if they applied it to Nike and other exploitative brands.

Originally posted by bradybaker
I just realized the possibility that my entire wardrobe could have been made by the same kid somewhere in the Phillippines. But then I thought to myself...is child labour really that bad?

Think about it, without those jobs at Nike, Abercrombie & Fitch or the Gap they would have NO money at all. Twelve cents a day might seem pretty barbaric to us, but twelve US cents can go pretty far in a country that is a lot less fortunate that us. If you ask me, some money is better than no money at all.

Ok, yes there is a difference between Child Labour and Child Slavery. I worked on the farm when I was a kid, I loved it. What you are referring to above is Child Slavery (please don't tell me you would accept 12 cents a day). Throughout the thread you have said "there is a difference between child labour and slavery, the media only portrays the worst etc etc". What I want to know, is are you talking about Slavery or Labour? The thread is talking about Child Labour, but it is clear in the first post that you are referring to Child Slavery. You can't pick both.

Child Labour where they barely get enough money to feed themselves, thus forcing childeren into sweatshops at a very young age is deplorable. I mean the American line of "bring freedom and democracy to the world" would be great if they applied it to Nike and other exploitative brands.

The only way you can truly say that 'child labour is good' is if you yourself went to one of these places and endured the same conditions as them. When you return, if you still think it is a great idea, then by all means shout it out. Send your childeren there at the age of five while you're at it.

Originally posted by Roller
The only way you can truly say that 'child labour is good' is if you yourself went to one of these places and endured the same conditions as them. When you return, if you still think it is a great idea, then by all means shout it out. Send your childeren there at the age of five while you're at it.

Roller the one thing you are forgetting is that you can't have someone from one place who enjoys a certain standard of living go to another place that is completely different and has a lower standard of living and expect to get a valid answer. The only way that he would be able to tell you the truth about it was if he were to have been born there, raised there, and then worked there.

Roller the one thing you are forgetting is that you can't have someone from one place who enjoys a certain standard of living go to another place that is completely different and has a lower standard of living and expect to get a valid answer. The only way that he would be able to tell you the truth about it was if he were to have been born there, raised there, and then worked there.[/b]

True, the kid may be born in the country and have known no different and not see anything wrong with it. This is because the kid has never experienced any other way of living - send him to live in a first world country for five years, and he would no longer accept what he previously thought was normal.

Morally, you shouldn't accept conditions in which you yourself would not work in, although I do realise that in reality it is a different question.

if its optional child labor hell no they are making money it may not be alot to us but helps put food on their families tables and keeps the price of stuff down

[quote]

if its optional child labor hell no they are making money it may not be alot to us but helps put food on their families tables and keeps the price of stuff down

Mmm you see I'm not quite sure you understand the kind of choice they have... work in a sweatshop or have no money at all... struggle to make a living to feed your sick and dying mother or let her die and die with her, or turn to crime.... not really the best choice around.

And you're concerned about keeping the price of things down... well the reason clothes cost so much is because of the massive mark-up the brands put on clothes just for the label. If some more of that money went to the person making it then it would not change the price of things.

Wow, I'm suprised this thread is still alive!
Btw, this subject reminds me of a movie - 'Rundown'
Anyone seen it?

A large part of the movie revolves around a brazilian community being forced into slave labour because they earn 65c a day (which is better than 0c)

... I'm just reading the topic name... but for me, I love child labor, it's so cost efficiant, especialy when you starve em.... so what if I'm evil...
but really, I don't like it that much... it's a little wrong in a way, but if it's easy stuff, than I think that it should be okay...

Oh pleeeaseeeeeeeeee!!! There are millions of children suffering in abject poverty, being chained to machinery, forced into the sex trade, and dying for pennies a day. Do not be under any illusions, THEY SUFFER FOR OUR CONVIENIENCE AND VANITY. We dont see half of wot goes on, and while Bush and Blair pick each others tics, kids are dying every second, no love, no comfort cos no-one cares. How any idiot could suggest that they are benefitting from this treatment in any way is beyond me.

anyone that even tries to justify manipulating the poor is an immoral peice of dogshit....that said i dont know how its possible to live in american society without having something that was made over seas by some gaudy commercial industry. this is why i plan on moving to costa rica.

Just a question: Did you read the rest of the thread, or just look at the topic?

The argument mostly focused around the compensation they recieved for doing work, assuming the work conditions were tolerable. Obviously, if children are forced to work in a factory where their life is clearly on the line for meager pay, you can't really defend it. But if they're working in decent (Note: Decent does not mean extravagant. I know the conditions are horrible, and by decent I mean survivable conditions) conditions for the same pay, I believe that much of child labor becomes viable. The children forced into the work are mostly from the poorer classes, and likely wouldn't be able to afford an education. If they could, it likely wouldn't increase their pay above what they're making in the factories.

The amount they are paid has little relevance as well. Because of the state of their home's economies, the money they make is worth far more than we take it to be. Because America's currency is so strong relative to their local currencies, they may be making less than a cent an hour, but that would still be enough to pay for food and clothing.

Just go back and read the rest of the thread. Honestly, if you're going to drag a thread out of the grave after being buried for three months or more, you might as well do us the courtesy of reading the previous posts to give yourself an informed position.

i understand the position very well....im sure there are benefits from it. However the reason this is done isnt to benefit the children or the poor ,,,,see it for what it is...a company taking advantage of a situation they know they will benefit from....it just happens that the children reap benefits as well,,,i would argue that these benefits arent even that much better than if they didnt work for the companies.....so my opinion stands and the ceos need to die like any good disease.

Now you're showing ignorance. YES, the companies are profiting far too much relative to the kids. I would advocate making the products produced to the immediate area, at prices relative to the pay of the workers. If they make jeans, let them buy the damn jeans. But just saying that the company or the CEOs need to die is a very short-sighted approach. Removing the factories will harm the locals far more than the larger company. Remember, these are multi-billion dollar companies. Losing one $1,000,000 factory won't hurt them. But if hundreds or thousands of locals lose their jobs which pay for food for their families, it WILL hurt them. Devastate them, really. Because of the extended presence, they've come to rely on the factories as a source of income. If they factories had never been there, they wouldn't have developed the reliance, but that's too late to be helped for the moment.

Still, you can't be so simple-minded to believe that the solution is that obvious. If it were, it would already have been used.

eating kiddies is good... no I'm not a cannible... I swear <.<.... >.>