Discount Tutor

Due to this, it is easy to see the morally bad decisions. CST believes that it is the worker’s right to work freely and on their initiative, as well as they believe in the right to a just living wage and the obligation of the owners to make sure this is true. Starting by looking at the Cacao owner’s it is obvious that they are following any of these, since they are using both child slavery, and by average is paying about 40 cents for twelve hours of hard labor.

When it comes to Hershey’s, it does become a bit more complicated, since they are after all paying the Cacao owner’s for their supply, and not the Cacao workers. However, by making sure that they pay the owners enough, and setting pressure on these owners, they would take their responsibility to make sure that these rights are upheld, and the children, and other workers, dignity is restored, and this will be morally right. Considering how successful this company is, there is definitely a responsibility to give back for what they get.

Furthermore, the government of Ghana acknowledges this problem and has tried to resolve it, but with no greater success. This at first seems like a morally good thing that they tried, however, according to CST the government has a responsibility to guarantee and protect the people’s right and freedom, which they have failed to do. And, greater action is needed for it to eventually become morally right.

By the government’s lack in action, the owners' execution and Hershey’s acceptance of the conditions of child slavery, and all the other violations that occurred at the plantation, they are further removing the children’s right to a childhood, and the chance of school to attain a brighter future, further making it morally flawed. For it all to be morally right there needs to be an exchange between responsibility and rights. There should be workers who freely want to work, and taking their responsibility by putting in their best work, and then receiving a just wage for it.

I agree with the principle of responsibility and rights since I do believe there needs to be some sort of fairness between what you give and what you get. Additionally, neither of these conditions could ever be excused even if you do not contribute to anything. Along with human dignity, all humans have an intrinsic value, where I believe that everyone has the right to a childhood, fair living standards, right to their own bodies, etc. Therefore I believe that Hershey, and the government, needed to put higher pressure on the suppliers. Especially, Hershey due to the multitude of their business it is part of their responsibility, and I am sure they can develop plans, or even departments, that ensure the fairness of their supplies so everyone can have their rights upheld.

Classmate 2:

In this article on, No Hershey Kisses for Children of Africa case, it is a detailed story on how children of tender age are subjected to working in coffee farms whether forced by the owners through slavery or sold by their parents forcefully to work to these farms so that the family can earn some income. Ironically, these children work in these farms are exposed to very many risks beyond their age and the most challenging thing is that they do not enjoy the products gained from the results of their labors. These children do not have access or opportunity to enjoy the produces they toil to achieve. Following the allegations, the company decided to engage in partnerships that comprise public and private groups to help overcome the challenges of labor achieved through inappropriate ways. 

Ethically, a person’s right must be respected regardless of what the result is (Hammersley, 2015). The right of an individual should be given priority in decision-making. An individual’s rights are termed as ethical if a large number of people support it. In this case, I think that the decision made here was unethical. This is because it did not take into account the rights of these young children working in these cocoa farms while in reality, they should have been in school. Both the companies and the parents violate the rights of these children. Although the Utilitarian theory of Ethics holds that an act is right when it benefits a large number of the population, it is not still right in this case (Hammersley, 2015). In as much as this child will work here to the benefit of his/her family, his/her rights as a child are violated and thus this makes the decisions made unethical and limits its worthy. Some of the available alternatives in this case for the company was to uphold ethics by respecting the rights of the children (Hammersley, 2015). The company and the parent should, in this case, put into account the rights and priorities of these children and embark on the decision that will benefit the child and help him/her achieve his/her set goals.