John B. Dilworth's Commentary on "What Job You Can Accept"
Author(s):
John B. Dilworth
This is a useful case because it focuses on a deep,
recurring nexus of moral problems. These concern the clash
between personal ideals or life-plans and the realities of the
social and business world. In its most general form the problem
appears as a near-omnipresent threat of moral prostitution. Any
work which is done at least partly for money is morally
suspect, because in those respects it does not advance one's
moral ideals, and in some cases it could significantly
compromise one's ideals.
It is important to emphasise the general problem of the
clash of personal ideals versus social realities, because it is
easy to think that it is only the overt moral conflict cases
which are morally problematic, such as that presented in the
current case. However, there could be any number of jobs which
were consistent with Gerald Wahr's general moral convictions,
and which yet are also morally problematic. For example, any
benign but unchallenging long-term job of no social importance
could lead Gerald's friends to accuse him with some justice of
having led a morally wasted, pointless life. The sins of
complacency may rival those of 'selling out'.
How then can we overcome this central moral problem of the
working world? A useful clue is to be found in the slogan 'If
you're not working on the solution, then you're part of the
problem'. Intuitively, morality requires us to be actively
engaged in bringing about solutions to the moral problems of
our jobs, whatever the jobs and problems may be. Even in
difficult, overtly problematic cases, it may be possible to
preserve one's moral integrity by appropriate remedial planning
and action. What follows are some reasons and strategies which
could preserve the integrity of someone like Gerald in the
pesticide business, if he were to enter it.
First, prior to his first interview, Gerald needs to get a
good overview of the many aspects of organic versus non-organic
farming. He needs to clearly define for himself the actual and
ideal contributions of each to the world of agriculture, both
present and as projected into the indefinite future. Questions
such as exactly what factors make organic farming good, and
chemically-assisted farming morally unacceptable, have to be
asked, and any exceptions or unclarities in the questions or
responses need to be carefully noted by him. He should then use
the results to outline a plan for how he himself, working (at
least initially) inside the pesticide industry, could do as
much to accentuate the benefits and to minimize the potential
harms of pesticide use as possible. If the plan intuitively
offers enough of these kinds of 'moral profit' overall, he can
go to the interview and accept the job with a clear conscience.
Otherwise, he should turn it down.
It is useful to compare this strategy with those suggested
by two of Gerald's friends. Both Allen ("the work's going to be
done anyway..") and Bob (better Gerald than a pesticide 'nut')
offer utilitarian solutions. These ignore the pressing personal
dimensions of moral commitment which are addressed here. They
also totally ignore everything specific about the issue of
pesticides versus 'natural' farming. Gerald needs to know that
his efforts are morally worthwhile in this specific case, and
that he is on the right side -- as part of the solution rather
than the problem in this area of agriculture. Here are some
specifics he could use in his plan.
First, exactly what are pesticides? The stereotype of a
pesticide is of a chemical which kills pests. But more
generally in agriculture they are chemical or biochemical
factors which promote resistance or immunity -- to diseases,
parasites, or to other factors which would prevent optimal
growth of a desired crop or species. Understood in this wider
context, the agricultural pesticide business is one in which
profitable solutions to problems of harmful growth are
developed.
Given this wider understanding of what a pesticide business
is or should be doing, Gerald can look for morally worthy
things to do with some confidence. For example, he doubtless
knows that recombinant DNA ('gene splicing') techniques have
shown great promise in producing strains of wheat (and other
crops) which are naturally pest-resistant. In these cases, the
immunity-promoting factors are actually part of the genetic
constitution of the crop. Gerald could work within his
pesticide company to ensure that it makes strategic alliances
with appropriate bio-technology firms, so that it can share in
the patents and profits to be made from selling
disease-resistant crops (whose use will widely benefit farmers
and the public they serve).
Even if Gerald's pesticide company is narrow-minded and
reluctant to change, he could prove to them that it was
definitely in their own interest to make such alliances and
adopt such broader views. The bad image of pesticide companies
as merely selling harmful chemicals, whatever the damage to the
land, is after all a powerful reason not to buy pesticides from
companies having such attitudes.
If a company wants to maintain or enlarge their list of
customers, they must be willing to provide whatever will
satisfy the real long-term needs of those customers. Most
likely this will involve a broad range of customized solutions
in each case, involving more disease-resistant animals and
crops, more long-term environmental management of land (for
example, selling customers more fertilizer and other 'support'
items rather than just disease-prevention items), with
'straight' chemical pesticides being supplied only when nothing
else will work. Gerald can become part of the solution to
pesticide problems by actively working within his company for
such longer-term self-interested thinking on the part of his
employers.
To finish, note again that the 'threat of moral
prostitution' mentioned at the beginning has no general
solution; we must carefully analyse each specific case,
including the apparently easy ones as well as more questionable
cases, to see whether or not a commitment to a role in the
business world is morally acceptable. Personal integrity
demands no less.