How should we conceive of individual consumer responsibility to address labour injustices?

In Yossi Dahan, Hanna Lerner & Faina Milman-Sivan (eds.), Global Justice and International Labour Rights. Cambridge University Press (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Many approaches to addressing labour injustices—shortfalls from minimally decent wages and working conditions— focus on how governments should orient themselves toward other states in which such phenomena take place, or to the firms that are involved with such practices. But of course the question of how to regard such labour practices must also be faced by individuals, and individual consumers of the goods that are produced through these practices in particular. Consumers have become increasingly aware of their connections to complex global production processes that often involve such injustice. For example, activist campaigns have exposed wrongful harm in factories producing clothes, shoes and mobile phones and farms producing coffee, tea and cocoa. These campaigns have promoted the message to ordinary people that by becoming connected to unjust labour practices through their purchasing behaviour, they acquire special additional moral responsibilities to contribute to reforming such practices, or to address the hardships suffered by the victims of the wrongdoing that result from them. The moral significance of the responsibilities of individual consumers has not, however, received much analytical scrutiny. Why should we believe that there are such responsibilities? And if there are such responsibilities, what are their grounds? How stringent are the responsibilities triggered by such connections? Finally, what are the implications of such responsibilities—the courses of action that they prescribe or proscribe? The activists who assert special ethical responsibilities for consumers have promoted many particular courses of action, but have seldom articulated the grounds of these responsibilities or explained why they should be taken to be stringent. And moral and political theorists have not devoted much focussed attention to this issue. For the consumer who is concerned to act in a morally permissible way, this presents a troubling practical challenge regarding the goods they may (or may not) purchase, and the moral relevance of their consumption choices more generally. While we cannot address all of these pressing questions in this chapter, we try to make some headway with them by discussing two general approaches to the question of how individuals should conceive of their responsibilities with respect to such practices, taking as our starting point the recent work of the late Iris Marion Young—the most sustained treatment of this topic by a prominent political theorist. In a series of influential articles and a posthumously published book, Young articulated an approach to conceiving of individual responsibilities to address labour injustices—the social connection model—at home and abroad. She also argued that an alternative model—the liability model—which she claimed had dominated discourse on this topic, suffered from very serious flaws. In a critical vein, we will argue that Young’s arguments against the liability model are not convincing, and that the alternative she proposes is itself vulnerable to some damaging objections. We also find, however, that the liability model would need to be extended in various ways to provide an adequate account of individual responsibility to address shortfalls from minimally decent wages and working conditions, and we begin the task of sketching an extended framework.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Climate Change, Responsibility, and Justice.Dale Jamieson - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (3):431-445.
The limits of corporate responsibility standards.Andreas Rasche - 2010 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 19 (3):280-291.
Collective responsibility for historic injustices.Janna Thompson - 2006 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 30 (1):154–167.
Group Moral Agency as Environmental Accountability.Joan Woolfrey - 2008 - Social Philosophy Today 24:69-88.
Are Codes of Conduct in Global Supply Chains Really Voluntary?André Sobczak - 2006 - Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (2):167-184.
Global Responsibility in the Context of Individual Personality.Lysun Olga Valerevna - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:807-812.
Responsibility and False Beliefs.Peter Vallentyne - 2011 - In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), Justice and Responsibility. Oxford University Press.
Corrective Justice and Personal Responsibility in Tort Law.Allan Beever - 2008 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 28 (3):475-500.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-07-21

Downloads
628 (#24,483)

6 months
99 (#35,685)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christian Barry
Australian National University

Citations of this work

Two forms of responsibility: Reassessing Young on structural injustice.Valentin Beck - 2023 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 26 (6):918-941.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references