Henry West's Commentary on "What Job You Can Accept"
Author(s):
Henry West
Some people might think that if Gerald Wahr goes for the
interview, he is committed to taking the job if offered, but
that isn't so. He may find out more about what kind of work he
would be doing with Pro-Growth Pesticides and whether he could
do it in good conscience. Even if he thinks that it is highly
unlikely that he will take the job if offered, his having an
interview is not an act of bad faith.
But should he take the job if offered? He probably wouldn't
even consider it if it weren't that the family is in dire need
of the income, and the income that he would get from an
engineering job would be significantly greater than from any
alternative. With no other engineering job in prospect, this is
his best chance of enabling the family to meet the mortgage
payments and his father's medical bills.
Another argument in favor of taking the job is that he would
learn about the pesticide industry from the inside. His father
had said, "If you really want to show those pesticide folks a
thing or two, you've got to be able to talk their language."
After working in the pesticide industry, he would really be
able to talk their language. And the job need not be forever.
While there he can be keeping his eyes open for other positions
in chemical engineering which do not compromise his ideals, and
he would get valuable experience. Or his father's medical
expenses might be paid for, and he could then return to work on
the family farm, as planned.
Would an explanation that he is doing it to save the farm be
a consolation to his father, or cause his father even greater
distress? Would his father accept his own words ("...you've got
to be able to talk their language") as a good reason for
working for a pesticide company, or would his father feel that
Gerald was using his talents and education in destructive ways?
Should Gerald even worry about what his father will think?
Maybe he should take that into consideration, the way that one
takes into consideration the effect of one's action on anyone
who is affected, but Gerald should not let his father's
attitude make his decision for him. Gerald might have good
reasons for taking the job which his father would not accept or
that he would not want to state to his father.
II
Allen's first argument looks like an excuse that could be
used to justify being co-opted into doing almost anything. But
there is some force to it. If a bad result is going to happen
anyway, your participation or non-participation isn't going to
make any difference. If pesticides are going to be produced and
used, it won't help any if you "keep your hands clean." If
everyone were to refuse to work in the pesticide industry, then
they wouldn't be produced and used, but since everyone isn't
going to refuse, what difference does one person's refusal
make? This argument has many applications elsewhere. If animals
are going to be grown on factory farms and eaten for food by
others, what difference does it make that one vegetarian
refuses to eat meat? If everyone were to refuse to serve in the
military, there would be no more wars; but, if most people are
willing to serve, what difference does one pacifist make?
Gerald could reply that he is setting a bad example by working
in the pesticide industry, and setting a good example by
refusing. Others might follow his lead. But it would be naive
to think that his example is going to make much difference.
Bob has an intriguing argument. If Gerald takes the job and
does ineffective work, that might have better consequences than
if someone else takes the job and works effectively, for
example discovering ways of making more deadly and
environmentally more hazardous pesticides, or how to make them
more cheaply so that they are used in even greater quantities.
If Gerald were to accept this argument, he would be
compromising his integrity in two ways, not only by working to
produce a product that he does not believe should be used, but
also by working half-heartedly instead of in good faith for his
employer. But this is not a completely absurd argument.
Sometimes subversion is more effective in hurting an enemy than
outright attack.
Don's argument is different. It is not that Gerald could
slow down the production of pesticides by poor work, but that
he might be able to redirect it into production of less harmful
products.
One danger which his friends don't mention is that if Gerald
takes the job, he may become corrupted by the environment in
which he works. Those around him will be believers in what they
are doing. Gerald may have difficulty finding another job and
be with the company for years. He may begin to talk himself
into believing that what the company is doing has to be done. A
nuclear scientist who was assigned to work on the Clinch River
breeder reactor in 1966 thought that the danger of an accident
with such radioactive materials was such a risk that the plant
should never be built. Ten years later, when the project was
cancelled, after he had spent the best ten years of his career
in producing an effective design, he was terribly disappointed.
He had come to believe that the world fuel shortage justifed
the use of dangerous nuclear power.
III
Even if Gerald has decided that he wants the job, a lie
would probably not help him get it. A perceptive interviewer
could see through it. Trying to avoid any answer at all would
also probably not work. Gerald could honestly express his
concerns about the environment. Most likely the interviewer
would then begin to try to sell Gerald on the belief that the
company shares his concerns.
IV
As indicated above, it is possible to be corrupted once
one's self-interest is involved. If one's work and one's
ethical commitments don't match, one is likely to solve the
discomfort by compromising one's ethical ideals. Furthermore,
people are likely to do better work if they believe
enthusiastically in what they are doing. If they are working
merely for a paycheck, without any belief that the work they
are doing is serving any good purpose, they will feel alienated
from the work, feel that they are simply putting in time on the
job in order to receive a salary to spend on what they consider
their real life. But work ideally can be an expression of one's
self, of one's productive powers, of one's contribution to the
world.