Neil R. Luebke's Commentary on "What Job You Can Accept"
Author(s):
Neil R. Luebke
At the most general level the problem in this case is the
possible conflict between moral values and job selection. In
this particular instance a conscientious chemical engineer is
faced with the problem of working for a pesticide company, an
area of commercial activity that his family and he have long
opposed. The general problem confronts people in many areas of
possible employment. Should a person opposed to gambling work
in a casino? What about working as a janitor in a casino rather
than operating one of the tables? Should a person opposed to
drinking liquor work serving beverages to customers in a bar?
What about working in a restaurant that has a bar attached to
it? In a military context, of course, the problem arises in the
case of conscientious objection to military service, or at
least military service that involves the possibility of killing
other persons. Should an engineer who is a pacifist work in a
defense-related industry? Some job situations may involve
political commitments. Suppose you are a civil engineer who is
Jewish, a strong supporter of Israel, and work for a
multinational firm. What should you do if you are assigned to
head one of the firm's construction projects for a government
that is an enemy of Israel?
It is one thing to be opposed ethically to the product or
service provided by a potential employer; it is another thing
to decide not to use that product or service personally. A
person who does not smoke, for example, might have no
difficulty working for a cigarette manufacturer. There are a
number of bartenders who are teetotalers. The problem that
confronts Gerald in the case is not one of being forced to use
pesticides in his own farming; it is rather the compromise of
his own convictions as well as the tacit approval of pesticide
production and use which his working for Pro-Growth Pesticides
might convey. This approval of pesticides would not only be in
opposition to his own ethical views but would oppose his
family's strong convictions. Indeed, his father's opposition to
pesticides seems to have been one of the major motivating
factors in leading Gerald to a college career in chemical
engineering.
There are at least four ethical considerations that confront
Gerald: first, his own ethical opposition to pesticide use;
second, his obligation to uphold his family's commitments;
third, his obligation to use and develop his own skills in the
best ways possible; and fourth, his obligation to help support
his family in time of hardship. Let us consider this latter
obligation a little more thoroughly. We certainly cannot assume
that, if Gerald does not get a job with Pro-Growth Pesticides,
he will have no opportunity within the coming months to get
another engineering position. There may be other possibilities
looming in the future that he does not yet know. Moreover, we
know that engineering is a demanding curriculum, requiring
skills in mathematics, design, general scientific knowledge,
knowledge of specific applications in equipment and processes,
familiarity with timetables and organization of work,
experience in working in groups and with group projects, and
possibly training in business and management skills. In short,
there may be other job opportunities available to Gerald
outside of engineering, opportunities to use many of the skills
he has picked up in his chemical engineering program.
We should also look at this situation from the points of
view of the potential employer, Gerald's engineering college,
and Gerald's classmates. At least two considerations are
relevant here. First, the pesticide company, in granting an
interview to Gerald, is assuming that he is a legitimate
candidate for a position; otherwise, they wouldn't waste their
time and effort in discussing the matter with him. If he is not
interested in the position, he should let them know up front.
To fail to do so would not only waste the company's resources
but also possibly undermine the chances of another student
interviewing with the company. In many cases such company
officials can meet only a limited number of students, usually
preselected. Second, it is possibly wrong for Gerald to assume
that the pesticide company is interested only in pesticides.
The company may be planning to expand into other areas of farm
chemicals, perhaps into areas to which he has no conscientious
objection. In short, Gerald should be up front with the company
about his own feelings, and if the company representative still
wants to go through with the interview, Gerald may find out
that some of his objections are not valid. However, if Gerald
goes to the interview without initially telling the company
about his objections, his actions may harm other potential
candidates and reflect poorly on his school. The decision is
not merely a matter of going or not going to an interview; it
is rather a decision of how to address the question of an
interview in such a way that his college is not harmed, the job
prospects of Gerald's fellow students are not harmed, the
company is not harmed by wasting its resources, and possibly
Gerald himself is not harmed by getting a bad reputation among
interviewers.
Let us suppose that Gerald follows the advice of his friends
and goes ahead with the interview without alerting the company
about his conscientious feelings regarding pesticides. Let us
suppose that what happens as a result is described in section
III of the case study. Both the interviewer and Gerald are now
in a very unhappy situation. Here Gerald seems to have only two
alternatives, neither of which is acceptable: either he lies
about his views on pesticides or he tells the interviewer his
true views on pesticides, thus exposing him to the legitimate
charge of proceeding through the interview under false
pretenses.
The advice of Gerald's friends does not seem to be worth
much. Everything that Allen says in his first statement may be
true: somebody else may take the job; it won't go away because
he stays away from it; the job's going to be done anyway. But
none of these claims is directly relevant to the question of
whether Gerald should compromise his ethical values. Both Bob's
and Don's suggestions seem to call on Gerald to compromise his
professional standards. One of them suggests that he become a
subversive within the organization; the other one suggests that
he become a reformer inside the organization. In both cases,
Gerald is being asked to compromise his professional obligation
to serve his client or his employer as faithfully as he is
able.
The civil engineer and writer Samuel Florman (The
Existential Pleasures of Engineering) has emphasized that
engineering is and ought to be a creative, satisfying, socially
valuable, and respected career choice. Much of a professional's
self-identity and self-respect is essentially bound up with his
or her career. On the other hand, we all have the experience of
doing jobs we don't like. They may be jobs that seem demeaning;
some may involve boring work that doesn't use our talents; some
may require doing unpleasant tasks, such as an auto mechanic
telling a car owner that her car isn't worth repairing, or a
retailer telling a customer that he can no longer extend him
credit, or a supervisor telling an employee that she is going
to be demoted because her work is substandard. The type of job
situation confronting us in this case, however, is potentially
more serious. We may be wrong in some of our convictions, and
certainly our moral viewpoints do undergo change. But change in
this sense usually leads to greater personal integration, not
disintegration. If an individual such as Gerald takes a
position that daily requires him to split his personality--to
compromise his ideals, to consider himself a person with whom
he would not want to associate--there is a likelihood of
self-inflicted psychological damage in addition to the damage
he might bring to his employer.