Advertisement

Res Publica

pp 1–20 | Cite as

Does Purchasing Make Consumers Complicit in Global Labour Injustice?

  • Holly Lawford-Smith
Article

Abstract

Do consumers’ ordinary actions of purchasing certain goods make them complicit in global labour injustice? To establish that they do, two things much be shown. First, it must be established that they are not more than complicit, for example that they are not the principal perpetrators. Second, it must be established that they meet the conditions for complicity on a plausible account. I argue that Kutz’s account faces an objection that makes Lepora and Goodin’s better suited, and defend the idea that consumers are complicit in at least two of the ways distinguished by the latter. In the final section of the paper, I consider whether consumers’ responsibility for complicity in global labour injustice is likely to be as strong as responsibility from another source, namely benefiting from that injustice.

Keywords

Complicity Ethical consumption Labour injustice Global injustice Benefiting Kutz 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to audiences at the Society for Applied Philosophy Conference, Edinburgh, 3–5th July 2015, and the Nuffield Political Theory Seminar at the University of Oxford, 7 March 2016; Dominic Roser and Stephanie Collins for their thoughtful comments on the written version of the paper; Dan Halliday for useful discussion; and two anonymous reviewers for Res Publica for helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Dunham, Jeremy and Lawford-Smith, Holly. 2017. Offsetting race privilege. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 11 (2).Google Scholar
  2. Kagan, Shelly. 2011. Do I make a difference? Philosophy and Public Affairs 39 (2): 105–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kelly, Annie. 2013. ‘Bangladesh’s garment workers face exploitation, but is it slavery?’, The Guardian, 16 May. http://theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/may/16/bangladesh-garment-workers-exploitation-slavery. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
  4. Koksvik, Ole and Øverland, Gerhard. Manuscript. ‘Profiting from poverty’. http://www.koksvik.net/files/koksvik_overland_illicit_profit_current.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.
  5. Kutz, Christopher. 2007a. Complicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kutz, Christopher. 2007b. Causeless complicity. Criminal Law and Philosophy 1: 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lawford-Smith, Holly. 2015. ‘What “we”?’ Journal of Social Ontology 1 (2): 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lawford-Smith, Holly. 2016. Difference-Making and Individuals’ Climate-Related Obligations. In Climate Justice in a Non-Ideal World, ed. Clare Hayward, and Dominic Roser, 64–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lepora, Chiara, and Robert Goodin. 2013. Complicity and compromise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nefsky, Julia. 2012. Consequentialism and the problem of collective harm: A reply to kagan. Philosophy and Public Affairs 39 (4): 364–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pasternak, Avia. 2014. Voluntary benefits from wrongdoing. Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (4): 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Riley, Charles. 2013. ‘Bangladesh vows reform amid allegations of ‘modern slavery’’, CNN Money, 6 May 2013. http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/06/news/bangladesh-factory/index.html. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
  13. Shiffrin, Seana. 2012. Harm and its moral significance. Legal Theory 18 (3): 357–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. War on Want. 2017. ‘Sweatshops in Bangladesh’, 2017. http://www.waronwant.org/sweatshops-bangladesh. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations