Nick Alvarado

Business Ethics
Jill Klaassen
10-1-14
Morality of Cocoa Beans
For years, the cocoa industry has been tainted by the presence of child slave labor.
These children are abducted from their homes, sold by a trafficker, and displaced to the Ivory
Coast and Ghana. The boys typically are unable to speak the local language, have no idea where
they are, and will be savagely beaten for lack of work effort or for trying to escape. As the
United States is one of the largest consumer of cocoa products, as well as claiming to lead the
world in elements of freedom, do American companies, and even consumers, have a moral
conflict in use of these products?
We can start by analyzing the situation with J.S. Mills utilitarianism. Mill states that it is
not the agent's own greatest happiness that matters "but the greatest amount of happiness
altogether." Simply using this principle, one could argue that the suffering of the child slaves is
not enough to offset the happiness that cocoa products bring to the world. In fact, their
unwilling sacrifice to produce the cocoa beans is almost noble to a point. Furthermore, the
heads of the cocoa product manufactures are creating the greatest number of happiness for
the greatest number of individuals. So what if a few children are whipped to produce it? In fact,
Mill himself states that if there is enough inner duty and sympathy, society will move towards

promoting the greatest number of general happiness. While spending our money on say, an
education and home for these child workers would certainly lead towards a greater happiness
than simply consuming sweet foods, as a society we have not viewed it as worthwhile to give
up this commodity.
Immanuel Kant states a different ideal in his categorical imperative as well as his
kingdom of ends. Kant rationalizes that we should, Act in such a way that you treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end,
but always at the same time as an end. This is to say, that an individual has a duty to not use
the humanity of themselves or others as a means to some other end. Therefor a slave owner is
morally wrong to assert their right to own another person as a slave. Now we bring up the
question whether the corporation or consumer that buys these tainted products has a moral
obligation to stop this. Kant states, that as individuals, we have an imperfect duty to further the
ends of ourselves and others. It is our moral duty to seek an equal end for all people. This will
lead to a non-conflicting solution to the principle of perfect duty.
Using John Rawls theories of justice, we can come to a different conclusion. Rawls
states that every individual has a right to basic liberties. This is to be equal among all
individuals. For example, personal belongings, as well as a home, are basic rights. Already we
can see how a slave owner would violate this theory. Rawls states these as inalienable
liberties, as no government can infringe on them. Rawls also states that there is to be a fair
equality of opportunity. As any position should be available to any individual regardless of
social background, ethnicity, or sex, the slave owners infringe on this right by tying a child
worker to a single profession. Lastly, Rawls difference principle states that only inequalities

permitted must be advantageous to the worst off. Therefore, wealth must diffuse up. In the
case of cocoa in West Africa, there is no wealth for the children. They are not indentured
workers, they are simply slaves. The only argument I can see that Rawls would make for this
situation is that corporations and individuals may be excused from guilt from this industry, if
and only if they were ignorant of it the entire time. As soon as knowledge of these practices
surfaces, we have a moral duty to step in and intervene. At the very least, pressure the
manufactures to take a stand.
However in this case, a simple boycott would not suffice. If the money stops flowing into
Africa for cocoa beans, the local economies could become destabilized. What little money the
workers do receive is in the form of a place to sleep, and enough food for them to survive
another day. If we take the money out of the equation, we are met with two likely scenarios.
Either the trade stops completely, and we are left with thousands of uneducated children,
displaced from their home with no hope of getting back. Or the slave owners simply move the
children to another, potentially more dangerous industry. This is reminiscent of slave worked
brick kilns in Pakistan. If we are to take action, it must be a global effort to increase overall
happiness.
Morally, the corporations supporting this trade are not to blame. They simply supply a
huge, worldwide demand for cocoa products. We use these in forms of cosmetics, lotions,
sweets, and for baking. If this industry simply stopped, hundreds of thousands of individuals
would be out of work. It seems like letting this travesty go on is the lesser of two evils. However
as a consumer, there are multiple other free trade chocolate companies to support. It comes
down to what we value anothers life in regards to our simple pleasures. If consumers took

action to state that they no longer wish to support child slavery in their confections, the
industry as a whole would restructure. Hershey could look into producing their own cocoa
beans, supporting legitimate local growers. However illegal it sounds, Hershey could pay off
local officials to ensure that the business ran smoothly, as this is already occurring with slave
owners. The price of a candy bat would certainly go up, but if the consumers are willing to pay,
a historically corrupt region could be stabilized by legitimate business.