Michael Rabins' Commentary on "What Job You Can Accept"
Author(s):
Michael Rabins
Before commenting on Gerald Wahr's circumstances, it appears
that a logical inconsistency in the presentation of the facts
of the case need some attention. It is not convincing that
Gerald must interview Pro-Growth Pesticides, Inc. in order to
save the farm. In the second paragraph it is stated, "Since
Gerald had expected to return to the farm, he already missed
many opportunities for job interviews". Well, since Gerald had
planned on returning to the farm anyway it is reasonable to
suppose that the Wahr family anticipated additional income from
his presence. With his father in the hospital the extra income
would not materialize, but bills would. If the hospital stay
will be for an "extended period of time," it is not clear why
Gerald couldn't work on the farm, for at least a while, and
wait for additional engineering employment opportunities to
present themselves. There would have to be a breathing room
period during which the medical bills and mortgage payments
would not yet be overdue. Gerald's presence on the farm would
maintain farm income at previous levels, and other engineering
employment opportunities could possibly materialize.
To make the urgency of the Pro-Growth Pesticides interview
more compelling and convincing, it might be advisable to
restate some of the circumstances of the case. For example,
Gerald might be in the middle of the first semester of his
chemical engineering M.S. degree program when his father
unexpectedly passes away after an expensive hospital stay
during which the bills quickly mounted. Further, the economic
times might be so bad that Gerald is lucky to have even just
the one interview with Pro-Growth Pesticides. Grim
circumstances, but realistic--and perhaps more convincing for
the questions that follow.
Having said all of the above, let us now presume that Gerald
is faced with the real quandary of whether or not to interview
Pro-Growth Pesticides. It would almost appear that this
situation raises questions of common sense as much as ethics,
although there are ethical dimensions to the situation that
need to be discussed as well. Let us turn to Shakespeare for
some guidance on the common sense issues. In "Hamlet", Polonius
gives the following sage advice (in addition to quite a bit
more) to his son Laertes who is about to travel abroad: "To
thine own self be true, for it then follows as the night the
day, that thou canst not then be false to any man." If Gerald
interviews and subsequently accepts a job with Pro-Growth
Pesticides, he clearly will not be true to his own or his
father's views on pesticides. If he is truly convinced that
pesticides are not only harming the environment generally, but
farm products in particular, then there is no way that he will
be able to honestly act as a faithful agent or trustee for his
employer (NSPE Fundamental Canon #4). It does not take much
imagination to envision situations in which, as a Pro-Growth
Pesticide employee, he will have to act in violation of his own
conscience (while being false to others) and probably of one or
more strictures of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Turning to Gerald's conversations with his friends (part
II), several ethical issues do immediately arise. Allen's view
that the work will be done even if Gerald refuses the interview
("Your refusing the job won't change a thing") is an age-old
rationalization for doing something we know may be or is wrong.
If enough people turn their backs on such a rationalization,
maybe things will change. Change for the better, whether
evolutionary or revolutionary, comes about because a critical
mass of people do opt for the morally right path.
Bob's utilitarian argument is based on the premise that
Gerald will slow things down a little by not being gung ho
after he takes the pesticide job. This raises serious issues
involving the means-end principle. Does the good end (organic
farming eventually prevailing) justify the dubious means of
Gerald dissembling on the job by being less than gung ho?
Don's advice to take the job and try to introduce a few
reforms from the inside only makes sense if Gerald is up-front
about that in his interview. If Pro-Growth Pesticides is
willing to hire someone with Gerald's entrenched views on
pesticide use, then maybe he could make a difference. But then
Gerald better make sure there are mechanisms within the company
to raise differing professional opinions. A number of companies
have such mechanisms as company ombudsmen, ethical hotlines or
reword procedures for productive disagreements with company
policy. If it is Gerald's intent to change the company from
within, he better make sure that the opportunities are there to
do so.
However, from part III of the case (The Interview), it is
made pretty clear that Pro-Growth Pesticides, Inc. does not
agree that change is needed. Once Gerald is asked his views on
pesticides, he pretty much has to have made a decision, in
advance, to either have changed his mind or to prevaricate on
the issue. If his family's welfare, and the farm are that
important to him, Gerald must recognize that he must forego the
luxury of his previous strong feelings about pesticides. Only
if he can make that conscious decision is he justified in
continuing the interview, once into it.
In part IV of the case (Jobs) the question is raised about
what kinds of engineering related jobs might be declined
because of ethical concerns. Many graduating engineers
carefully limit the kinds of companies they interview to rule
out (or in) companies involved in Defense Department weaponry
contracts or environmentally impact-prone companies. Whatever
the case, and whichever the concerns, it is wise for
interviewee to think through these issues before even signing
up for an interview.