I have seen a lot of discussion about how globalisation results
in exploitation of people in developing countries. For example, exploitation of
people working in Chinese factories making iPads for us or exploitation of
people working in call centres in India providing customer service for our banking
issues.
A question has been raised about what’s missing in the
definitions of globalisation that we looked at in the lecture notes. I think
what’s missing is an author providing a philosophical standpoint on globalisation;
and the rights and responsibilities all of us share. One specific question that comes to mind is “What are the
moral obligations and responsibilities of western countries that enjoy the
benefits of cheap products and services resulting from low cost and exploited
labour in developing countries?”
Robinson (2002) discusses this issue by saying that
globalisation poses issues for both the developed and the developing countries.
People in developing countries face exploitation in jobs due to low wages and
unsafe working conditions. People in western countries are unsafe in their jobs
because they don’t know when their jobs will be outsourced to another country.
Robinson’s arguments to me suggests that there is a need to establish
moral and ethical guidelines for bodies that engage in, drive or benefit from
globalisation. These guidelines will ensure that globalisation is sustainable,
equally (as far as possible) beneficial to citizens of the world.
References
Robinson, M (2002). Ethics, Human Rights and Globalization. Ethics, Human Rights and Globalization.
Page 4-5. Read online on 28 July 2012 http://www.weltethos.org/1-pdf/20-aktivitaeten/eng/we-reden-eng/speech_Robinson_eng.pdf
Hi,
ReplyDeleteYour point is very cleary here. I can see that you tried to start with the idea of "equality". You might suggest that western countries and non-western countries should be equal in this global society. You asked a very good question here that why are western countries benefited from non-western countires through their cheap productions? Yes, why it is those workers from non-western countries to offer their labours and cheap products to benefit people in western societies? In a moral standard, this situation is not fair and cannot be justified. However, when we talk about globalisation, we also should think in a economic perspective. When we think its not fair for non-western countries to offer cheap labours, do you also consider about what can these countries can get from offering labours? Actually, when rich counries and poorer counries make a trade, one offers what they have to another, and one get what they can get from another. Developed couries offer developing counries high techlologies, in return, these developing counries offer labours to produce high techniuqe products. Thus, it is atually a resource exchange and sharing, i think that is what globalisation supposed to be.
Thank you,
Danni
Your blog here about the sustainability and ethical concerns realting to Globalisation i found quite interesting. Indeed the world has abandoned the previous trade methods of tariffs and local protection in favour of freer trade, and the removal of uncopetitive business in favour of putting resources in the more internationally competitive industries- and this adatption comes with a whole host of things to consider especially concerning equality
ReplyDeleteI’m having a bit of trouble understanding what you mean here. Don’t you think that there is a difference between a definition of globalisation and your proposed philosophical/moral guideline? A definition is a description of what something is, and the best definitions are often the most objective, VALUE FREE ones. Whereas I see your proposed philosophical guideline as more of a regulatory measure which is ultimately attached to values and morals. To conflate these two, in my opinion, would be to merge two completely different spheres of discourse. And if such a merger of philosophy and definition did occur the result would be a distorted value-laden amalgamation of “what ought to be” and “what is”.
ReplyDelete