According to the nonworseness claim, it cannot be morally worse to exploit someone than not to interact with them at all when the interaction 1) is mutually beneficial, 2) is voluntary, and 3) has no negative effects on third parties. My aim in this article is to defend the moral significance of exploitation from this challenge. To that end, I develop a novel account of why sweatshop owners have a moral obligation to pay sweatshop workers a nonexploitative wage despite the fact that their relationship is entirely optional. More precisely, I defend two main claims. First, I show that sweatshop owners are morally obligated to pay sweatshop workers a nonexploitative wage even though they have a right not to hire them and even though that will require them to pay sweatshop workers a wage that is higher than the one they voluntarily accepted. Second, I explain why this obligation on the part of sweatshop owners is not defeated by the fact that other individuals not party to the transaction would benefit even more than sweatshop workers from receiving this additional level of pay.

根据非更坏主张，当互动 1） 是互利的，2） 是自愿的，并且 3） 对第三方没有负面影响时，剥削某人在道德上不会比完全不与他们互动更糟糕。我写这篇文章的目的是捍卫剥削在这一挑战中的道德意义。为此，我提出了一种新颖的解释，解释为什么血汗工厂老板有道德义务向血汗工厂工人支付非剥削性的工资，尽管他们的关系完全是可选的。更准确地说，我捍卫两个主要主张。首先，我表明，血汗工厂所有者在道德上有义务向血汗工厂工人支付非剥削性工资，即使他们有权不雇用他们，即使这将要求他们向血汗工厂工人支付高于他们自愿接受的工资。其次，我解释了为什么血汗工厂所有者的这一义务并没有因为以下事实而被削弱：非交易当事人的其他个人从获得这一额外工资水平中受益甚至比血汗工厂工人更多。