Notes

Utilitarian ethics judge morality by pain or pleasure. A utilitarian may have different answers depending on the scale used to view the terrible working conditions that are violating the human rights of these people in foreign nations. In a smaller scale, this state of affairs is completely immoral as the people working to make these products are suffering from long hours and low pay. However, in a larger scale, there is a lot more profit to be made, and thus, more pleased individuals – at the cost of poor working conditions in these foreign nations. With pain balancing against pleasure, pleasure wins, therefore excusing this state of affairs.
Consumers do have an ethical responsibility towards people suffering human rights abuses in foreign nations because the working people in the developing nations are ignorant to what they are being robbed of and we have the ability to boycott products. For companies like Pepsi, a safer workplace does not affect Pepsi’s humongous profit. In the 1990s, the consumers voices were heard and respected when companies such as Levi Strauss, Reebok, and Amoco, along with several others, withdrew from business with Burma due to the unacceptable violation of human rights that were happening there. It is our duty as consumers to tell these companies enough is enough.