The Common Arguments for Fair Trade

Abstract

In this article I consider the connection between individual morality and Fair Trade goods. In particular, I consider whether a number of arguments commonly advanced in defence of Fair Trade can defend the conclusion that individuals ought to purchase Fair Trade goods in particular, or whether they are sufficient to show only that purchasing Fair Trade goods is one of a number of acceptable ways to meet more general moral duties. Although various points are made in the article, its main theme is that it is difficult to show that purchasing Fair Trade goods is, even in one way, preferable to donating to charity, at least without advancing certain highly contentious moral claims. I argue that unless defenders of Fair Trade can address these issues, it will be difficult to defend the view that individuals should purchase Fair Trade goods in particular.

Gender Differences in Psychosocial Determinants of University Students’ Intentions to Buy Fair Trade Products

“…The FT movement may also help protect human rights by promoting social justice, sound environment practices, and economic security (Redfern and Snedker 2002). Although there is no clear consensus to date among researchers on the positive and negative impacts of FT practices on equity and economy in international trade (e.g., Griffiths 2012;Steinbrücken and Janinchen 2007;Walton 2013;Willett 2010), overall, the FT concept appears to provide an additional incentive to support better working and living conditions in the Third World (Barham and Weber 2012;Raynolds, Murray, and Taylor 2004). Accordingly, universities are encouraged to create more opportunities for students to buy FT products, for instance by offering a variety of FT products on the campus, such as coffee, tea, chocolate, fruit, and rice (Engineers without borders 2008).…”

Individual Responsibility for Promoting Global Health: The Case for a New Kind of Socially Conscious Consumption

“…It is not enough to say, for instance, that consumers could give to charity instead. 84 There may be a stringent obligation to do both of these things. One may not have to purchase goods from Global Health Impact certified companies if doing so is incompatible with giving to charity (or whatever) and a choice must be made these things.…”

Scaling‐Up Alternative Food Networks

“…Finally, our thoughts about potential trade‐offs between aesthetic and moral values should be sensitive to whether people can realize the benefits of promoting AFNs through other means, for example, by giving to particular charities. For example, if someone could discharge a duty of fairness by donating directly to organizations that work to develop more democratic international institutions, then she might be morally permitted to resist scaling up AFNs for aesthetic reasons, on the grounds that she addressed the concerns that count in favor of scaling up AFNs through other means (see, e.g., Walton )…”