Ethics Assignment 1

INTL 3500 Sec A: Assignment 1

1) The two Western modernist ethical theories used to evaluate the decision to boycott Uzbek cotton are egoism (outcome oriented) and ethics of duties (principle oriented). The key people directly affected by the decision to boycott are: the Uzbekistan state authority, Islam Karimov, the cotton farmers, the children, cotton trading companies, cotton processors, clothing manufacturers, retailers and customers.

Since egoism assumes that a man has only limited insight into the consequences of his actions and thus the only suitable strategy to achieve a good life is to pursue his own desires or interests, it must be considered whether all the key people affected by the boycott were free to pursue their own desires or interests as a result of the boycott. Since the boycott was signed by clothing manufacturers and retailers and did not involve others, it is unclear whether the self-interests of all parties were satisfied through the boycott. The boycott restricts a portion of the market for Uzbekistan cotton and thus restricts profit for the Uzbek state authority. Hence the boycott is not in Islam Kamikov’s self interest. Furthermore, the boycott does not directly improve the conditions under which the farmers work. The boycott may have even restricted the meager livelihood that the Uzbek cotton farmers received from supplying cotton. With the temporary reduction in demand, the farmers may have no income whatsoever for a certain time. The boycott also results in Uzbekistan finding other sources of demand such as India, China, Bangladesh etc. that are less concerned about working conditions in Uzbekistan. Thus, it is clear that the interests of the farmers, which would be good working conditions and retention of profit, are not met by the boycott. It can be assumed that the children’s long-term interest may be to attain an education. The boycott may have resulted in the Uzbek children not having to work in the cotton fields and instead go to school for the three months that they usually spend picking cotton. However, this is only temporary because Uzbekistan will sign contracts with new countries which will mean that children will again be required to work in the cotton fields instead of going to school. Thus, the boycott does not fully serve the interests of the children either. The cotton trading companies, cotton processers, clothing manufacturers and retailers’ interests are not met either. It is in the interest of these companies to produce at the least possible cost and maximize profit. Due to the boycott, a cheap, reliable source of cotton has been severed and now these companies must find other sources of supply, which may be less convenient and more expensive. Consumers’ interests are to maximize consumer surplus but as a result of this boycott, the price of clothing that previously included Uzbek’s cheap cotton, may increase and therefore reduce consumer surplus. Hence, the boycott fails to satisfy the consumers’ self-interest. It is ultimately clear that through the lens of egoism, the decision to boycott Uzbek cotton is morally wrong.

From the perspective of ethics of duties the Uzbek cotton boycott is examined through the three maxims that constitute the framework of the theory. According to maxim 1, the question is whether the principle behind boycotting Uzbek cotton can be a universal law, applied universally. Essentially if countries around the world can agree that production practices that exploit human labor are corrupt, then such a boycott can be applied across industries and countries. Aside from the farmers and children, if Islam Karimov, the executives of the companies in the supply chain and the consumers agree that it is unfair for the Uzbek farmers and children to work under the current conditions, then it clear that such a law to boycott Uzbek cotton can be deemed moral. Regarding maxim 2, it is clear that the current working conditions of farmers and children in Uzbekistan ignores their human dignity. The Uzbek state authority uses farmers and children as only means to profit without regard for the farmers’ and children’s needs and goals in life. The boycott on Uzbek cotton recognizes this lack of respect for human dignity and tries to indirectly address it by refusing to participate in the cotton trade in Uzbekistan. It is arguable whether or not the boycott actually restores human dignity to the farmers and children. However, despite the result, the principle behind boycott is largely human dignity (or lack of it in Uzbekistan) and hence satisfies the second maxim to be a moral decision. The third maxim asks whether other rational actors would endorse the boycott and evidently, since other retailers and manufacturers follow Marimekko in signing the boycott, it demonstrates that others indeed endorse the action. It also reveals that many companies would be uncomfortable sourcing cotton from Uzbekistan, which shows that the labor conditions in Uzbek cotton industry are morally doubtful. Hence through the ethics of duty, it is clear the boycott is a morally right action.

2) Aside from the boycott on Uzbek cotton industry, an alternative solution would be for the related parties to come together at a roundtable discussion to solve the ethical conflict identified in Uzbekistan’s cotton industry. Since the relative parties come from diverse backgrounds involving companies from various countries with possibly differing moral belief systems, it would be very difficult to achieve an outcome favorable to everyone if the solution does not consider input from the key people who would be affected by the decision. This solution is aligned with discourse ethics which advocates generating norms based on a given situation, instead of trying to apply given norms to every situation. To peacefully settle the conflict between the state authority, farmers, children, the companies in the supply chain and the consumers, all parties must sit together and engage in a discourse about the settlement of the conflict. Elected representatives from all groups should participate in the discourse to bring in their unique perspectives and come to a common ground in generating the terms and conditions of cotton trade in Uzbekistan. Although such a solution will be potentially time consuming, such an approach paves the way to coming up with norms that will be closest to the interests of all parties involved.

Word count: 1027

The questions:

Case 7: Uzbek cotton: a new spin on child labour in the clothing industry?
(Crane&Matten, Business Ethics, 3ED, pp 333-337)

Answer the following questions (ignore the questions in the book on p 336):

1. Evaluate the boycott of Usbek cotton by major textile companies. Use ‘Western

modernist ethical theories” (pp 97-116) to make your case. Was it the morally right

thing to do?

2. Think about alternative solutions to the problem. Use one or more of

the ‘Contemporary ethical theories’ (pp 118-127) to justify your suggested solution.