I think that if the employee has sufficient information about the context of their actions to know that the broader aims and/or means of their employer are reprehensible, but they continue so as not to lose their job, there is moral culpability on the part of the employee for those actions.

When does "just doing my job" fail to alleviate one of moral responsibility? — Judaka

You are never alleviated of moral responsibility. I tried to draw that distinction between ethics and morals on the thread about that subject. Moral responsibility it your responsibility to yourself.

I would investigate the U.S. military. They have been struggling with this for quite some time at the extremes of human endeavor. You must do what you are told to do, as fast as you can and to the best of your ability; and yet you cannot obey an unlawful order. Unlike civilians, they can't just walk away without suffering severe punishment. They are stuck trying to decide what is an unlawful order when they have not been given the tools to make that call. The situation differs greatly from the one you have laid out, but it is your situation refined down to the extreme nut.

When it comes to morality, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. And be prepared to suffer the consequences, or be hailed a hero. You could also look into the Nuremberg Trials, My Lai Massacre. It makes simply walking away (a civilian right) seem like an easy call.

I think that if the employee has sufficient information about the context of their actions to know that the broader aims and/or means of their employer are reprehensible, but they continue so as not to lose their job, there is moral culpability on the part of the employee for those actions. — Kenosha Kid

:100:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I'll add, that it's best - you have to - make your decisions ahead of time and ahead of need. — tim wood

Agreed. Some might say "Know yourself." That way, when the moment comes, you can remain centered and respond in accord with your morality.

What personal sacrifices should someone be forced to make, when they know their resignation won't have an impact on anything? Are they doing anything besides saving their own conscience? To what extent do you think it's justified for a third party to blame employees as being responsible for the situation? Given that theoretically if all employees refused to participate in perpetuating an unfair or harmful operation, then the problem would be resolved.

You are never alleviated of moral responsibility. I tried to draw that distinction between ethics and morals on the thread about that subject. Moral responsibility it your responsibility to yourself. — James Riley

Sure, I agree, but I am interested in what grievances a person has with a company can reasonably carry over to employees.

Was there any specific example, say, from the news that you had in mind? I find that the more real the examples get, the more reliable are the intuitions that you can form from them.

I guess for the sake of figuring this out, we can include illegal and legal activities. A Netflix documentary called "dirty money" has quite an interesting number of mostly illegal examples. Banks, factories, car manufacturers, real estate moguls who game the system illegally. So, we might ask, how responsible are the employees for these illegal activities? When their job depends on them toeing the line?

For a specific example, ICE is an interesting case. Their operations changed dramatically when Trump was elected and their new policies were very divisive. From ICE's perspective, they do what they're to told, they don't have the power to go against a democratically elected leader. That is their job, but still, they are ultimately responsible for carrying out these acts that people dislike. But it's precisely the people who are being deported, that have no ability to talk to the people in power who make those decisions and only deal with the employees. And even whether ICE should be blamed, its agents or just the policy is divisive. If Trump's policies are in the right, this example doesn't work, but assuming they're in the wrong, what level of moral accountability does each agent have for what they do?

Or present your own example, there's no shortage of them.

"When one finds oneself participating in an endeavor, entirely without merit - one withdraws!"
- Leopold Alexis Elijah Walker Gareth Thomas Mountbatten of Albany

What personal sacrifices should someone be forced to make, when they know their resignation won't have an impact on anything — Judaka

That seems to me an entirely separable question, less to do with one's own moral culpability and more to do with whether one has the power to do good or at least disrupt a perceived bad (e.g. become a whistleblower).

But addressing the point about sacrifice, yes, I do get that personal responsibility is going to cost some people more than others. Another separable point is that Darwinian approaches to managing people and their jobs is a fairly vile evil in itself, and that, in a less ruthless capitalist world, citizens, the state, and industry would be obliged to work together to ensure meaningful, gainful employment for every person seeking it. So if that's an issue for everyone, vote for a progressive party that makes industry work for the country not vice versa :)

To what extent do you think it's justified for a third party to blame employees as being responsible for the situation? — Judaka

I think, as per the post you were responding to, to the extent that the employee knew what was going on and, by continuing to work there, condoned it. If the employee had reason to fear for their life or family or health if they took a stance, that's a different matter.

Given that theoretically if all employees refused to participate in perpetuating an unfair or harmful operation, then the problem would be resolved. — Judaka

Aye, or even just a sufficient number.

I'm actually facing a related issue atm. I chose back at university never to work for a private military provider (despite the best job I've ever had being with the military) because I didn't want to have to worry about the ethics of my employer. Now the company I work for has been bought out by such a military provider. So far, nothing that makes me uneasy (nothing used to kill people).

If the employee had reason to fear for their life or family or health if they took a stance, that's a different matter. — Kenosha Kid

That's what I would be concerned about. Many people will not be in a position to be able to just quit a job and get another one without serious ramifications for their lives/families/health.

If the company demands of their employees to do actions that are considered immoral by society, the company is probably breaking laws of that nation since the accepted morality of a nation usually informs the laws of that nation.

Yes. But to what extent are the employees culpable for the immoral actions the company demands them to perform?

Yes. But to what extent are the employees culpable for the immoral actions the company demands them to perform? — MPhil

If they don't question the authority of the company when asked to do something immoral, they become part of the entity that makes the immoral act.

If they question authority but exist in a chain of command that can punish them by refusing or questioning, i.e military etc. and it's an act performed according to the orders they're given, they are not responsible because they are forced to by threat of violence if they don't.

Yes, I think that that is a humane position to take.

That's what I would be concerned about. Many people will not be in a position to be able to just quit a job and get another one without serious ramifications for their lives/families/health. — MPhil

I feel that is a quandary in itself though: the permission to do or advance evil for personal gain, even if that's to put food on the table. I appreciate that, depending on where and when you live, you might have to choose between ethics and eating, and I would be sympathetic to someone swallowing the former to swallow the latter, which is why we should not have a society that forces people to choose.

which is why we should not have a society that forces people to choose. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, I think that most such problems are systemic. Of course, communism showed that one cannot design a society in just any way one wishes.

I feel that is a quandary in itself though: the permission to do or advance evil for personal gain, even if that's to put food on the table. I appreciate that, depending on where and when you live, you might have to choose between ethics and eating, and I would be sympathetic to someone swallowing the former to swallow the latter, which is why we should not have a society that forces people to choose. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, it would depend on the nature of the immorality, no? Polluting is different from murder or theft. How would you treat someone who scammed a family member out of thousands of dollars but then told you that he was doing it to put food in his table? Is that really the only way to survive? Doubtful.

Is that really the only way to survive? Doubtful. — BitconnectCarlos

That's really what the question hinges upon, though: what is necessary. I would not think that that was necessary either.

Yeah, and the issue in real life is that people claim "necessity" as a way to avoid moral responsibility... repeatedly.

Even if someone could reasonably be expected to be killed for refusing an order, does that give them a blank check to follow all orders in order to stay alive? Society needs to bring back the idea of a noble death.

Society needs to bring back the idea of a noble death. — BitconnectCarlos

You got any pointers on that?

That is a damn good question and I'm not sure how to answer. My own convictions on the topic are grounded by my theism, but in addition morality can't just be an abstract project it needs to be practiced and honed. We need to train this capacity for moral fortitude or moral courage. I'm fully aware that it's one thing for one to talk about a noble death but a whole other thing to go through with it. To go through with it requires serious discipline and conviction.

Yeah, it would depend on the nature of the immorality, no? Polluting is different from murder or theft. How would you treat someone who scammed a family member out of thousands of dollars but then told you that he was doing it to put food in his table? Is that really the only way to survive? Doubtful. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think that's the argument you think it is. The default position I gave concerned whether an employee understands that their employer is unethical. Effective duress is an exception to that. This has nothing to do with whether the employee themselves is a criminal in their own right.

Effective duress is an exception to that. — Kenosha Kid

Quite. To me, it's unfair to judge an employee for doing something under effective duress, when the employer is the effective agent involved.

Quite. To me, it's unfair to judge an employee for doing something under effective duress, when the employer is the effective agent involved. — MPhil

Right. Generally I don't think 'I will have to look for another job' is effective duress when your current job is unethical. If you have very good reason to believe you won't get another job, I'd be somewhat more sympathetic, especially if the ethical concern is relatively minor (say, using a tax haven as opposed to polluting a river) but only because, to that extent, they are already a victim of barely restrained capitalism themselves. If your country has a reasonable welfare state, less sympathetic.

Generally I don't think 'I will have to look for another job' is effective duress when your current job is unethical. — Kenosha Kid

At 52, I definitely consider 'I will have to look for another job' to be effective duress.

A couple of years ago when I was working at the ministry of finance, there was a reasonable likelihood a right wing racist party would supply the minister of finance. I provisionally tendered my resignation if that happened as I refused to work for a person who looked down on about half of my colleagues just for having non-Dutch ancestors.

It raised an interesting discussion in my team and my manager. From an institutional point of view, the ministry is supposed to do what the minister says and the minister is accountable in front of Parliament. My problem with that was that this only concerned political accountability, which is not even remotely the same as moral accountability. There were those that argued combating excesses from the inside. I always thought that unrealistic for several reasons. Anyhoo, it never came down to it but having the discussion with people who would otherwise be a silent majority quickly changed them into a not-so-silent majority where they were thinking about how to sabotage a possible racist minister.

I think if you know it's wrong, you need to speak up or quit; anything BUT do your job.

That, I think, is a more nuanced and achievable ethic. There's more than one way to play the Game of Thrones.