Joseph Ellin's Commentary on "What Job You Can Accept"
Author(s):
Joseph Ellin
I
Due to an unforeseen family emergency, Gerald Wahr needs a
job fast, and one is available--with a company whose business
Gerald opposes. Should he try for the job at the pesticide
company, given that both he and his farmer father think that
pesticides harm the environment and are bad for farming--a
belief which Gerald's chemical engineering training has only
reinforced? If not, as the case puts it, his family may lose
its farm.
Unfortunately, there is no real solution for the person who
needs a job but has moral objections to the job he's able to
get. If Gerald is sufficiently dismayed by the pesticide
industry, it will obviously be impossible for him to work in
it. So he has to think out his options. There is no reason
stated in the case why he couldn't get a job at McDonald's in
order to tide the family over the crisis caused by his father's
illness. Maybe the money isn't good enough, but the point is
that there doesn't seem to be any absolute reason why Gerald
has to work as a chemical engineer, rather than something else
altogether, in order to pay the medical bills until the crisis
is over.
Gerald's position is a bit strange. His fondness for his
father has led him to adopt his father's dedication to the
cause of anti-pesticides. He intends to follow his father into
farming, and has apparently studied engineering specifically to
learn enough to prove his point against pesticides: "to fight
fire with fire," as his father puts it. He seems to have no
other interest in chemical engineering, and does not intend to
practice the profession but use his knowledge as a propaganda
tool. Given all this, it is difficult to understand how he
could even consider taking the job in question.
II
His friends make three arguments. Allen says that if Gerald
doesn't take the job, someone else will, which is obviously
true; but evidently Gerald's immediate problem is not how to
stop the pesticide industry from making pesticides, but only to
avoid helping them do it. (When it is time to stop the
industry, he will join an environmental group, become active in
farm politics, etc). From a strictly utilitarian point of view,
however, there is something to be said for Allen's advice. For
given that the pesticides will be made anyway, and given that
eventually Gerald intends to challenge the industry, it might
be the case that his position as critic would be strengthened
if he first works in the industry and gets to know it 'from the
inside.' So in view of his long-term goals, Gerald might
consider swallowing his distaste and taking the job. Bob
suggests that Gerald might be able to subvert the company from
within, by 'slowing things down a little,' and Don raises the
possibility of introducing reforms. Assuming that these are
legitimate options, and that their success can't be entirely
ruled out, Gerald would have to balance the (no doubt high)
unlikeliness of either strategy succeeding, against the
certainty that he will be helping the industry do something he
opposes, namely, produce pesticides.
However both Bob's and Don's suggestions are dishonest, and
would involve deceiving the employer Pro-Growth. So there is a
question whether Gerald can follow this advice. In addition Bob
is advising Gerald to do a poor job at Pro-Growth, which will
not help Gerald's future employment, if he should seek any, as
an engineer. Don at least is advocating that Gerald act openly,
through internal reforms; but Bob is advising Gerald to accept
the job even though Gerald not only knows he does not share the
goals and objectives of Pro-Growth, but actually has the
deliberate intention to subvert these goals. Few companies
would hire a person with such an intention, claiming the right
to hire only employees who are dedicated to the company's
success as the company defines it. While it is true that Gerald
could take the position that his opinions, even regarding his
company's products and policies, are his own business, so long
as he performs his job diligently, Bob's advice is that he not
perform his job diligently, but the reverse. Were Gerald to
accept the job with the intention to subvert Pro-Growth's
goals, he could be accused of a kind of employee fraud. (There
might be an analogy with a person who took a job in order to
spy out trade secrets and reveal them to a competitor).
IV
Therefore, it is important for Gerald to consider his
situation before he puts his qualms aside and goes for the
interview. Should he anticipate that the interviewer will not
ask him about his opinions, and should he then volunteer what
they are? Or if he is asked, how will he reply? He might say
that his opinions are not the company's business, and see what
happens. Or he might say that he does have reservations about
pesticides, but that he intends to perform the work required to
the best of his ability nonetheless (if this is true). If
Gerald were truly honest, he'd explain his opinions, since he
wouldn't want the company to hire him under false assumptions.
On the other hand, Gerald may well be fearful that any
indication of a reservation on his part would kill his chances
for job. He needs the money, and to this point he's apparently
willing to put his objections to pesticides aside, in the
interests of family finances. In that case, he might as well
put aside honesty also and lie to the interviewer. At a
pesticide company, you make pesticides. If you're willing to
work at a pesticide company even though you don't like to make
pesticides, you're contradicting yourself if you're not
prepared to tell them you want to make pesticides: he who wills
the end, wills the means. If Gerald gets the job he'll probably
have to lie sooner or later, (suppose they find out about his
farm background and ask him to pitch the product to farmers?)
unless he thinks he can successfully stay in the closet all his
life. So why not get used to it?
IV
To what extent should there be a match between one's ethics
and one's job selection? This general question can't be
answered other than in terms of cliche. You shouldn't accept
jobs which grate on your conscience. Some people don't have
consciences, and will take any job, including executioner. They
are lucky. Other people have to work things out as best they
can, including being willing to compromise sometimes if
necessary, but hopefully not too much. Many people have jobs
they don't like, or even detest, but they manage to perform at
standards nonetheless. The employer is interested in the
employee's job performance; the employee must consider his/her
duty to him/her own conscience. It's not easy to find a job
these days which might not worry our conscience at some point.
Dow Chemical used to make napalm; Westinghouse ran a polluting
nuclear bomb factory; electric companies cause acid rain;
AT&T admitted discriminating against women; Upjohn makes a
medication that, according to 60 Minutes and the British
government, turns people into murderers; even Kellogg's has
been accused of anti-trust violations and of putting too many
raisins in the Raisin Bran! Must one seek a morally pure
company? If not, it's a question of how bad you take the
company to be. No doubt some people have no problems with
pesticides but would never work for a company which tolerates
sexual harassment in the workplace. In that sense, ethics is
the art of knowing what you want to fight and where you are
willing to compromise.