Abstract

Sweatshop defenders argue that interference in sweatshop conditions through consumer activism or government regulations is morally wrong because, first, such acts harm sweatshop workers, and second, they disrespect these workers. Distinguishing the prohibitive aspects of sweatshop interference as harm on the one hand, and disrespect on the other, these sweatshop defenders build both a consequentialist and a deontological foundation for their argument, respectively. This article crafts a rejoinder to the second foundation of the defenders’ argument. In particular, the article responds to the defenders against their argument that interference in sweatshop conditions might be morally impermissible because interferers disrespect workers with their activism. The ground of the defended argument is an ex ante interpretation of contractualist ethics.