In “The Great Non-Debate over Sweatshop Labor” Maitland claims that the main arguments against sweatshop labor are not convincing, and that sweatshop conditions are, in fact, morally justified. His arguments are largely utilitarian—he focuses on the consequences of improving working conditions, argues that they are undesirable, and concludes that the current wages and working conditions are morally justified. In the first part of your paper, I want you to select one of the arguments against sweatshop labor, explain it, and then tell me how he refutes it. Next, I want you to explain his argument in defense of the current wages and conditions in sweatshops (the argument from concerns about unemployment). In the second half of your paper I want you to discuss an overseas sweatshop, such as Foxconn, and tell me what Maitland might say about the practices described in the sweatshop. How might Maitland explain or justify the practices?