Anyone who has studies economics had learned reasons why third world sweatshops might not be bad for their workers. If the workers are choosing to work there it's probably better than their alternatives. This is very different from if they were forced to work there. If you have to force them to do it their alternatives must be better.
Eliminating the option they choose is no way to help them. Instead, keep the sweatshop option open and try to create better alternatives.
Some people want to argue over the semantics of choice. "Do they really have a choice if their only alternative is starving to death?" It doesn't really matter how you want to use the word choice. What happens when you take away their crummy third-world sweatshop job? Well in this scenario they starve to death.
But to a more interesting point:
The exact same argument for tolerating sweatshop labor can be used to tolerate suicide. When someone chooses to commit suicide, it's probably better than their alternatives. The solution then, is not to take away the option of suicide, but to create better alternatives.
Perhaps we should legalize suicide machines to make it as quick and painless as possible (or exciting if you prefer).
We should stop talking people down from jumping off cliffs or buildings. Be sad that suicide was the best option for them, but don't keep them from it.
I also wonder about how much of suicide is messaging. And how much of that messaging is diminished if we simply tolerate suicide instead of making it a big deal. We might end up with a lower suicide rate.
