Liberal Individualism
Thomas Hobbes proposed that “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes 2) This is in reference to the theory of liberal individualism, as he wrote about in Leviathan. This theory is based on his laws of nature, which overall states that “people act on self-interest.” (Himes and Himes 29) By this, Hobbes means that people will do whatever will it takes to get what they want. According to liberal individualism then, sweatshops are okay for the consumer and businessmen because they benefit from the profits they make.
According to Hobbes, “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies.” (Hobbes 1) Therefore people are in constant competition with each other to get what they want. If the competition is great enough, and there is no power to keep peace, war will result. (Hobbes 2) In the state of war, there is no sense of right or wrong or justice. (Hobbes 3)
Hobbes goes on to state his first law of nature, which is that man has the right to do whatever it takes to get what he wants, even if it means harming others. (Hobbes 4) “Every man ought to endeavor peace… and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.” (Hobbes 4) However, according to Hobbe’s second law of nature, states that if people agree to, they can give up some rights to live peacefully in a society, without war. (Hobbes 4) If war is to be avoided, people must agree to give up some rights. People do not have to give up all of their rights, just enough to avoid entering war, unless they break the rules set for them. This is still in favor of self-interest though, since laying down some rights is still in favor of the protection of himself. (Hobbes 4)
Following the laws of nature set by Hobbes, sweatshops would be considered okay. The big corporations using sweatshops, such as Nike for example, are making a massive profit. Production and labor cost is cheap, and the prices for products are high so a large profit can be obtained for each product. This promotes the self-interest for the businessmen at the corporation, because they are making money, which is what they want. Since the production cost is much cheaper because of the low labor cost, they are making more money than if they paid the workers a higher salary. The businessmen have the right to use sweatshops to make more profit, and the fact that they are treating the workers unfairly to do so is irrelevant. The same principle applies for the consumer, because products would cost much more if sweatshops weren’t used to decrease production cost, so they benefit by spending less money for the same product.
However, according to Michael Himes and Kenneth Himes, liberal individualism is not as extreme as Hobbes claims it to be. This is because “self-interest… is counterpoised by other human passions.” (Himes and Himes 31) Since people have emotions and empathy for others, their drive to gain what they want may be hindered if it involves harming other people. This is also known as enlightened self-interest. (Himes and Himes 31) Since people have a “common human desire for a correspondence of feeling with others,” or sympathy, “self-interest could be relied upon to check itself.” (Himes and Himes 31) Therefore, no getting what you want because it harms others is not totally against self-interest because people still have sympathy with others, and harming people would interfere with this sympathy.
If the issue of using sweatshops was reevaluated using Himes and Himes definition of enlightened self-interest, the situation could be viewed differently. A businessman working for a corporation could make greater profit using sweatshops, but he most likely has at least some sympathy towards the workers. Therefore, the guilt that could result from him using sweatshops could actually be so great that it would outweigh the amount he would of profit he would gain using them, and he might not use them in the end.
Whether the use of sweatshops is right or wrong from a liberal individualistic perspective depends on whether the view of Hobbe’s self-interest is chosen or the view of Himes and Himes’ view of enlightened self-interest is chosen. If Hobbe’s perspective is taken, it can be determined that sweatshops are good for the consumer and businessman, since they will ultimately benefit from using them. However, if Himes and Himes' perspective is taken, the consumer and businessman benefit, they ultimately will find sympathy with the suffering workers, and therefore not use sweatshops as a means for profit. Therefore, overall sweatshops are probably seen as a good thing in the eyes of a liberal individualist.
According to Hobbes, “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies.” (Hobbes 1) Therefore people are in constant competition with each other to get what they want. If the competition is great enough, and there is no power to keep peace, war will result. (Hobbes 2) In the state of war, there is no sense of right or wrong or justice. (Hobbes 3)
Hobbes goes on to state his first law of nature, which is that man has the right to do whatever it takes to get what he wants, even if it means harming others. (Hobbes 4) “Every man ought to endeavor peace… and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.” (Hobbes 4) However, according to Hobbe’s second law of nature, states that if people agree to, they can give up some rights to live peacefully in a society, without war. (Hobbes 4) If war is to be avoided, people must agree to give up some rights. People do not have to give up all of their rights, just enough to avoid entering war, unless they break the rules set for them. This is still in favor of self-interest though, since laying down some rights is still in favor of the protection of himself. (Hobbes 4)
Following the laws of nature set by Hobbes, sweatshops would be considered okay. The big corporations using sweatshops, such as Nike for example, are making a massive profit. Production and labor cost is cheap, and the prices for products are high so a large profit can be obtained for each product. This promotes the self-interest for the businessmen at the corporation, because they are making money, which is what they want. Since the production cost is much cheaper because of the low labor cost, they are making more money than if they paid the workers a higher salary. The businessmen have the right to use sweatshops to make more profit, and the fact that they are treating the workers unfairly to do so is irrelevant. The same principle applies for the consumer, because products would cost much more if sweatshops weren’t used to decrease production cost, so they benefit by spending less money for the same product.
However, according to Michael Himes and Kenneth Himes, liberal individualism is not as extreme as Hobbes claims it to be. This is because “self-interest… is counterpoised by other human passions.” (Himes and Himes 31) Since people have emotions and empathy for others, their drive to gain what they want may be hindered if it involves harming other people. This is also known as enlightened self-interest. (Himes and Himes 31) Since people have a “common human desire for a correspondence of feeling with others,” or sympathy, “self-interest could be relied upon to check itself.” (Himes and Himes 31) Therefore, no getting what you want because it harms others is not totally against self-interest because people still have sympathy with others, and harming people would interfere with this sympathy.
If the issue of using sweatshops was reevaluated using Himes and Himes definition of enlightened self-interest, the situation could be viewed differently. A businessman working for a corporation could make greater profit using sweatshops, but he most likely has at least some sympathy towards the workers. Therefore, the guilt that could result from him using sweatshops could actually be so great that it would outweigh the amount he would of profit he would gain using them, and he might not use them in the end.
Whether the use of sweatshops is right or wrong from a liberal individualistic perspective depends on whether the view of Hobbe’s self-interest is chosen or the view of Himes and Himes’ view of enlightened self-interest is chosen. If Hobbe’s perspective is taken, it can be determined that sweatshops are good for the consumer and businessman, since they will ultimately benefit from using them. However, if Himes and Himes' perspective is taken, the consumer and businessman benefit, they ultimately will find sympathy with the suffering workers, and therefore not use sweatshops as a means for profit. Therefore, overall sweatshops are probably seen as a good thing in the eyes of a liberal individualist.
