C.E. Harris' Commentary on "What Job You Can Accept"
Author(s):
C.E. Harris
Gerald's dilemma is not a problem in professional ethics.
Rather, it is a problem in personal ethics which is generated
by his professional training and his professional aspirations.
Like all dilemmas, Gerald's problem involves a conflict between
two competing obligations. On the one hand, he wants to be true
to his own moral ideals, which include his belief in the
superiority of organic farming. This belief is probably related
to a general commitment to environmental causes about which he
and his father care very deeply. On the other hand, he feels
morally bound to do what he can to save the family farm. No
doubt this sense of moral obligation is also related to strong
emotional ties to his family and to the land where he was
raised. Probably his family has lived on the farm for several
generations.
Gerald's predicament has all of the earmarks of a classic
moral dilemma. He feels himself pulled in opposite directions
by powerful emotional forces and by persuasive moral
considerations. Yet he apparently cannot satisfy both of the
demands. He feels that he would do something wrong no matter
what he does. Yet he cannot do nothing. "Doing nothing" would
presumably be to continue in school, but the decision to stay
in school might well involve sacrificing the family farm. So he
is forced to decide, and yet both decisions seem wrong. A
classic moral dilemma!
Such dilemmas can produce a sense of panic which often
results in paralysis of thought as well as of action. We are
inclined to either freeze up or to decide irrationally. "Just
put two numbers on two pieces of paper and place them in a
basket, "1" for staying in school and "2" for getting the job
with Pro-Growth. Then pick one of the numbers and act
accordingly." We all know that neither of these methods of
deciding is appropriate, so we need to think more carefully and
critically.
One way of escaping from the dilemma is to argue that one of
the options really is better than the other. All of Gerald's
friends appear to adopt this tactic. They argue that taking the
job with Pro-Growth really is better than abandoning the family
farm to its fate. Furthermore, the arguments of Gerald's
friends are all of a certain type: they are all utilitarian
arguments That is, they reason in terms of the consequences of
the two courses of action. The consequences are evaluated in
terms of human happiness or well-being.
Allen, Bob, and Don argue that, with respect to the
environmentalist perspective, the consequences of Gerald's
taking the job will be no worse than the consequences of
someone else's taking the job, and they may even be more
desirable. If Gerald does not take the job, someone who is less
sympathetic with environmental considerations might take it.
Thus, by not taking the job, Gerald may both harm the
environment and fail to do what he can to save the family farm.
From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, this is a powerful
argument.
There are two problems with this argument. The first problem
is a difficulty even from the utilitarian standpoint. We have
to ask whether Gerald's three friends have correctly assessed
all of the consequences of the course of action that they
recommend. If Gerald makes his reservations about pesticides
known to the interviewer, it is possible he/she might reply,
"You know, we have a small unit that is attempting to develop
products for use on organic farms, so we will be in a position
to take advantage of this market when it develops. We could put
you in this unit." Or, perhaps Gerald's criticism of pesticides
might prompt the company to set up such a unit. Again, if
Gerald goes to work, there is the chance that he might never
finish his degree. Finally, Gerald's friends might have
underestimated the chances of saving the family farm by other
methods.
A second problem with the recommendation of Gerald's three
friends is that it fails to take into account the effects that
following their recommendation might have on Gerald himself.
This is perhaps a type of consequence, but it is a consequence
of a different order. It is an effect on Gerald's sense of
integrity, on Gerald's status as a free moral agent who lives
in terms of his own moral convictions. In terms of the
philosophy of Immanuel Kant, their recommendation requires that
he treat himself as a "mere means" to some higher good, namely
the salvaging of the family farm, and that he do this by
violating his own conscience. Should one ever violate his
conscience in order to achieve some supposedly "higher" end?
This is not always an easy question to answer. Sometimes people
do feel justified in doing this. For example, a legislator may
agree to support a piece of legislation which he thinks is
wrong in order to gain passage of another piece of legislation
which he thinks is vastly more important. Is this justified? If
so, is this analogous to Gerald's situation?
Before attempting to answer these difficult questions, it
might be well to investigate in a more careful way whether
there is any way to satisfy both of the moral demands that
created the dilemma in the first place. If we can satisfy both
of these demands--even in a modified form--we might come out
better, from a moral standpoint, than trying to satisfy one and
reject the other. Here is where one's imagination comes into
play.
These two demands--saving the family farm and not violating
one's conscience--might be satisfied in various ways. Could
Gerald get a loan on the basis of his good job prospects? If he
could do this, he could save the family farm without violating
his conscience. Could he take a short-term job with Pro-Growth?
This would require his violating his conscience to some extent,
but it would also allow him to save the family farm. Could he
encourage his family to sell off part of the family farm in
order to pay the debts on the remaining part? This would
require at least a partial fulfillment of his obligation to his
family without violating his conscience. Or perhaps he could
both get a short-term job with Pro-Growth and encourage his
family to sell part of the farm. This would require a partial
violation of both of the original moral demands, but also allow
him to respect those demands in a modified form.
If we knew more about the specifics of the situation, we
might be able to think of additional compromises. But of course
there are those who say that such moral compromises are wrong.
Moral demands are absolute and unqualified. If this is true,
then we must go back to our earlier considerations in order to
determine which demand should receive priority. However it is
important to keep in mind that most moral demands are not
really unqualified. We might be inclined to say, "Never lie."
But we all know we cannot hold to this absolute, unqualified
norm in all situations. When someone with a knife in his hand
who is obviously deranged asks for the whereabouts of our
friend, we would be justified in lying. Similarly, we may not
be able to hold to a moral requirement such as, "Never in any
way violate your conscience." On the other hand, actions that
violate our conscience should not be undertaken lightly.