John B. Dilworth's Commentary on "Occupational Health"
Author(s):
John B. Dilworth
This is a case about obstructionism, in a situation where
undiscovered safety hazards are most probably present. Dan
Hayward is the victim of deliberate attempts by his supervisor
Cal Brundage to prevent him discovering any potentially
compromising safety information about ABC's manufacturing
processes.
Ethically the situation is clear. Managers and professionals
such as Dan and Cal have a duty to preserve the health of their
workers, and to minimize any likely threats to health caused by
manufacturing processes. Hence any inaction or complacency by
them with respect to these issues is morally wrong, and
obstructionism (such as that by Cal) is doubly wrong because it
prevents others (such as Dan) from carrying out their duties,
in addition to being itself a form of inaction.
What should Dan do? In this case or in general, he should do
whatever it takes to get the necessary information, and to get
it acted upon if the information reveals that there are
legitimate health concerns about the manufacturing processes.
If administrative 'stonewalling' continues, Dan may even have
to go outside ABC Manufacturing (to regulators such as the
OSHA, or to the press, for instance) to get appropriate action
taken.
By so doing Dan might easily put his own job in jeopardy,
but the obligation to ensure the safety of those one supervises
is so fundamental that Dan must be prepared to risk getting
fired. (An analogy: if one joins a police force, one must be
prepared to risk getting shot at sometimes. It is part of the
obligations which go with the job.)
In a broader context however, does this account of safety
responsibilities in the workplace place too much of a burden on
the few individuals who are prepared to carry out their moral
duty, whatever the personal cost? Or to put the problem another
way, can it really be one's duty, or be morally required, that
one should have to do things which could severely harm one's
own interests? Should this rather be regarded as moral heroism
(as being above and beyond the call of duty), rather than as
being morally required of anyone holding such supervisory
jobs?
It seems to me that this concern over burdensomeness is
legitimate, but that moral skepticism would be a very
inappropriate response. The problem could instead be handled as
follows. We should recognize that as members of a society we
have some second-order moral duties, whose description includes
a reference to one or more regular, first-order moral duties.
In the present case, we have the second-order duty to reduce as
far as possible the burdensomeness upon individuals of
first-order moral duties such as that of protecting the health
of those whom one supervises.
This may sound complicated, but a ready-made analogy is at
hand in standard legal systems and the sanctions they employ to
achieve compliance. Broadly speaking, the purpose of a legal
system is to ensure that everyone adheres to basic moral rules
or standards in their social relations (no harming of others,
and so on). The threat of sanctions or punishments for those
who might break the laws serves to minimize the burdensomeness
of obeying the laws for law-abiding citizens. Generally
speaking, the sanctions ensure that it is in one's interest to
obey the law rather than to break it, so that conforming to the
law (and hence to the underlying moral rules) is generally a
benefit rather than a burden to citizens.
What we need to do (i.e., our second-order duty) in the
present case is to ensure that there are enough legal and
regulatory mechanisms in place so that people such as Don can
do their first-order duty with a minimum of risk to themselves
and their own careers. The regulations should also be designed
so that the kinds of obstructionism employed by people such as
Cal should pose great risks to their own careers (risks such as
firing or imprisonment), so that even if they have no concern
for morality, self-interest would motivate them to do the right
thing.
Once we ensure that those who respect morality will
generally have an excellent chance of succeeding in moral
conflict situations, we will no longer be tempted to be
skeptical about the extent of moral duties over such basic
matters as health and safety issues. Much can and should be
expected of each of us in the workplace, but we are entitled to
full social and legal support in carrying out our difficult
responsibilities.