So much of what I see as having negative effects on society were not necessarily championed by people with foul intentions.
Too often, I seem to find that they were championed by warm-hearted people with perfectly good intentions only to lead to horrible results. I want to zoom in on one such case.
Child Deterrence Act
In 1992, Senator Tom Harkin proposed a bill to the US Congress known as the Child Deterrence Act. It was a ban on overseas goods made utilizing child labor.
Upon successfully passing the bill, a number of people might have pat themselves on the back for performing such a good deed by boycotting goods made with child labor.
Unfortunately according to UNICEF, approximately 50,000 child laborers working in the garment industry in Bangladesh were dismissed only to find themselves in much worse conditions.
A series of follow-up visits by UNICEF, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) discovered that children went looking for new sources of
income, and found them in work such as stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution.
As UNICEF cautions:
The world owes child workers a meaningful alternative if they are not to suffer from some of the very measures designed to help them.
We can't simply put people out on the streets by boycotting their products and expect great results.
Some economists even look at this as simply transferring money out of the child's pocket and into the hands of manufacturers who are much better off. There was even some suspicion apparently that this trade ban was actually intended to benefit such people, though that probably wasn't the case for those who most championed it*.
* Such suspicions of foul motives are largely irrelevant from my standpoint, only the results. Nevertheless, they might be worth noting for those who put intentions above results.
The Lesser of Two Evils
Consider thinking about things not as black and white, but as a choice between two evils.
Would you prefer a child working in a factory or as a prostitute?
This question is a bit loaded but there might be cases where these are the only two options available for many children if we're choosing whether to simply boycott goods made through their factory or not.
Unfortunately a lot of economical decisions seem to often boil down to choosing the lesser of two evils. Those seeking an ideal solution that eliminates human suffering outright all in one decisive maneuver often end up achieving results detrimental to that cause. Such is often the case when we act with our heart rather than our brain.
This article was intended to try to encourage those with the best intentions to hesitate and consider the consequences of their actions. From my standpoint, good intentions don't justify bad results. We can't simply go with the "A+ for effort" idea when so many people's lives are at stake.
Most Helpful Opinions