What is a Moral Career?

In the General topic on working for a public university, I have been surprised and dismayed at the people who offer unchallenged claims that working for a public university is moral.

To me, this raises a wider topic: What jobs can you hold, and still hold Objectivist principles, without contradiction?

What services can you offer? What goods can you sell?

To me, there is a difference between owning a television station and working for the Federal Communication Commission.

To me, there is a difference between owning a TV station which is highly regulated, and owning a newspaper, which is much less regulated. (The recent case of Howard Stern demonstrates that sometimes there are technical solutions to political problems.)

In Atlas Shrugged, we have the contrast between Dr. Robert Stadler, the nominal head of the State Science Institute, and Quentin Daniels, working as a janitor at the all-but-abandoned Utah State University. Both were doing physics at public institutions. I submit that the qualitative differences between them are undeniable.

I am currently writing an article about Proof Double Eagles. One of the greatest collectors of U.S. Proof gold coins was Emanuel "Ed" Trompeter. Between WWII and Korea, he worked for the FCC. After Korea, he started his own electronics company, selling prmarily to the U.S. military. I submit that for an Objectivist (which he apparently was not), working for the FCC would be immoral, but selling equipment to the American military would be moral.

Post 1

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:23am

I cannot think of any career that does not involve government coercion to one degree or another. If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that the degree to which your career involves government coercion is the degree to which it is moral, and that there is a line in that continuum where one can say a particular career is moral or immoral. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, I am sympathetic to that view. My question to you is what criteria exists for determining where that line falls? For me, the line is drawn when one is directly involved with the initiation of force, e.g. an IRS auditor. I don't think mere association with a illegitimate government agency alone is enough to condemn a career as immoral, e.g. a janitor at an IRS office. If you think the line should be drawn somewhere else, as you appear to do, please let me know what objective standards you judge a career by.

Post 2

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:17am

I would suggest that the criterion be whether or not the organization itself is legitimate. Working for the IRS in any capacity, whether janitor or auditor, is illegitimate.

Beyond that I would suggest a distinction between legitimacy and counter-productiveness. Working at the State Science Institute may not be illegitimate in itself but would be counter to the long term goals and values of an Objectivist.

Post 3

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:31am

Rick,

I'm not sure how your argument does not apply to the State Science Institute. Such an institute would not exist in a free market, right?

Post 4

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:09pm

Well, there are NIH, NASA, and many National Laboratories in US and Europe...

Post 5

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:32pm

Hong,
What I meant is that in a free market, all those organizations you mentioned, and more, would be privatized.

Post 6

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 10:11am

Byron Garcia wrote: " ... there is a line in that continuum where one can say a particular career is moral or immoral. ... what criteria exists for determining where that line falls? ... IRS auditor ... janitor at an IRS office. "

I outlined much of my philosophy of employment in the "Public Universities" topic, so I will not repeat all of that here. The easy answer here in this context is: "I don't know." I posted the question as a matter of wanting to think out loud with others on the broader topics of work and career and trading those divisions of labor. At some level, it might come down to an "aesthetic" choice, rather than a rational one. Being at Kennedy Space Center, pushing papers for the space shuttle and pushing swag on tourists were both pretty cool to me, exploring space, man's highest achievements and all that. Still, and all, I could have taken the same talents elsewhere for the same thrill, to the Rutans Scaled Composites, for example. So, really, it depends, I guess, on which is the "horse" and which is the "cart" when you decide that some job or other is "emotionally satisfying."

I am with Rick Pasotto. I thought out a little scenario, where I am a janitor and I want the security of a government job and the closest office building to my home is the IRS, so I can walk, say. Where does that leave me, morally? I am not satisfied with the easy answer. Janitoring is a skill and that skill would go to the tax-collectors. Why does a janitor deserve the security of a government job? Why does anyone?

So, I agree that working for the State Science Insitute (or NIH or NASA, etc., etc.) is likewise not a job for a consistent Objectivist.

I did mention in the "Education" thread working as a security guard. That would be a fairly easy career for an Objectivist. Being a guard seldom pays much, but there are entrepreneurial opportunities. Security is often regulated at the state level, but state licensing varies. (It was pretty easy in New Mexico, and somewhat more complicated here in Michigan. My wife wanted to know how a scoff-law like me becomes a peace officer and I said, "This is New Mexico!" A few months later, she took my picture outside the Lincoln County Courthouse to prove the point.)

When I look at a problem -- almost any problem, really -- I start with first principles. So, in the case of careering, I ask if I am working for my destroyers. If the whole world were run by these guys, would I have a chance? Oddly enough, I have been in government offices that were more pro-life than a lot of businesses that paid me. When I step back a bit and get a wider context, then I can see the problems generated by those seemingly "pro-life" government offices.

We believe that one of the problems with quack medicine is that it prevents people from seeking correct medical attention that will do some good. That is exactly the argument that Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis levels against the National Institutes of Health: they monopolize resources; they justify that monopoly; ultimately, their fake science is responsible for thousands of needless deaths.

That means, to me, that reality is not to be cheated. We can justify our choices in our own minds, perhaps, but the objective facts cannot be evaded.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/26, 10:13am)

Post 7

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:05pm

Note that in posing his question, Michael's entire context of what is "moral" or not is political.

But questions of morality don't begin and end with the issue of rights and the initiation of force. In fact, the only basis upon which to regard "rights" as moral, or the "initiation of force" as immoral, is an ethics of rational self-interest.

Isn't the question of the use of force a derivative social issue?

So doesn't the term "moral" refer more broadly to actions which are consonant with Man's nature and needs -- and more specifically, to that subcategory of those actions which are also in one's personal rational self-interest?

Asking these questions, however, may be diverting this thread in a direction Michael doesn't mean to go. Perhaps he could clarify.

Post 8

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 5:31pm

Take it away, Robert! If you have a truth to share, I, for one, am interested in learning.

As I read what you wrote in the post above, my curiosity is piqued. I expect you to show that it is in your rational self-interest to initiate force against others in order to take possession of values. Perhaps I misunderstand your intent.

Above, I said, "Oddly enough, I have been in government offices that were more pro-life than a lot of businesses that paid me. " I qualified that in the next sentence, but I do grant that whether one's place of employment is "pro-you" or "anti-you" may be independent of the goods or services nominally provided by the organization.

Post 9

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 5:57pm

To Michael Marotta:

I fail to see how you could derive from a single word of my Post #7 any endorsement of the initiation of force. Rather, it criticized your too-narrow, apparent equation of "a moral career" with any career that did not involve the initiation of force. It seemed to suggest that as long as a career was "politically correct," it was morally correct.

But a career's "morality" depends upon much more than whether force is involved. Even to conclude that "the initiation of force" is "not moral" presupposes some ethical standard that precedes and underlies social interaction and politics.

If a career is not inherently predatory, it still may not necessarily be "moral" by reference to such an ethical standard. If that standard is man's life (as it is in Objectivism), and if the purpose of that standard is to further one's own life, then a "moral" career would be:

A career in accordance with the fundamental (generic) moral principles of human well-being, but which also furthered and enhanced an individual's specific well-being and happiness.

In other words, within the general "field" of all those activities and professions that would be morally permissible, I would describe a "good" career as one that sustained an individual financially, challenged and utilized his capacities and talents, engaged his interest and brought him emotional fulfillment.

I read somewhere an ancient Greek definition of happiness, or perhaps "eudaimonia," which went something like this: "the exercise of vital powers, along lines of excellence, in a life affording them scope."

Sounds like a good description of "a moral career" to me.

Post 10

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 5:31am

Robert Bidinotto wrote: "I fail to see how you could derive from a single word of my Post #7 any endorsement of the initiation of force."

This is what confused me, which is why I asked you about it: " In fact, the only basis upon which to regard "rights" as moral, or the "initiation of force" as immoral, is an ethics of rational self-interest." You followed that with the rhetorical question, "Isn't the question of the use of force a derivative social issue?"

I think you cleared that up with "Rather, it criticized your too-narrow, apparent equation of "a moral career" with any career that did not involve the initiation of force. It seemed to suggest that as long as a career was "politically correct," it was morally correct."

I believe that reality is unified. It is impossible to have a "morally correct" career that is politically incorrect, aesthetically incorrect, metaphysically incorrect, etc.. Specifically, you say, "I would describe a "good" career as one that sustained an individual financially, challenged and utilized his capacities and talents, engaged his interest and brought him emotional fulfillment." Can you have a challenging job that pays well but which depends on denying the law of identity? Suppose your office were cultural Magritte-ists: This is not a desk... This is not a coffee maker... These little signs are posted everywhere. And you want to know whether or not a shipment of parts arrived and the logistics manager says that he cannot be sure, but, it seems... And so on.

I find a lot silly in the world and one reason that I have never held any employment for more than 1 year 51 weeks (twice in 20 years) is that in meetings, I burst out laughing when people say silly things, or when the boss asks if anyone has a better idea, I offer one. I had one boss take me out for a tour of facilities and along the way ask me what everyone on the team thought of him. So I told him. I put it in the best terms, of course, and pointed out both sides, and allowed that we all knew that he had a difficult job, but, basically, everyone on the team had some issue and I enumerated them. He couldn't take criticism -- and really did not need to. Getting rid of me probably sent a clear message.

Finally, I figured out that individiualists "smell" different and I stopped telling anyone anything. I show up early. I work all day. I go home. In six weeks or 90 days or six months, my products roll out and I move on.

The only way I am able to complete a project on contract is by ignoring the wider problems that assault my sensibilities. I have worked many projects in the automotive industry. All cars are junk, even the Linguini. But there are interesting technical problems involved in their manufacture. The work pays well.

No one asked me to redesign the world for them. So, I take things as I find them and do the best I can for myself. That is not the moral high ground for an Objectivist.

So, why not work for a public university, or the Department of Public Health, or the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or the Democratic National Committee? Well, we all have our limits, I suppose. I have mine, I know that.

At least with the automotive industry, cars are something that other people really seem to want badly enough to borrow a lot of money for, so it approximates the Atlas Shrugged utopia I would prefer to live in.

I have the same problem in numismatics. I make money at this. Much of it appeals to me because numismatics is a hobby where people buy and sell money. What could be more objectivist than that?

As you point out:: "... a career's "morality" depends upon much more than whether force is involved. Even to conclude that "the initiation of force" is "not moral" presupposes some ethical standard that precedes and underlies social interaction and politics."

Being an architect is a "moral" career, as it does not involve the initiation of force. Building Victorian eclectic homes is not moral, however. And that's my problem -- even in numismatics.

In numismatics, the ANA and others, have rallied behind the government and defined COIN as being ontologically dependent on the existence of governments. You cannot run an advertisement in Coin World, Numismatic News, CoinAge, or Coins, for a privately-issued "coin." Only governments can issue coins -- by definition.

Sure, I focus on private issues, tokens, medals, checks, stocks, bonds, chits, scrip, etc., but I just finished a feature article on Proof Double Eagles. What was I supposed to say? They are junk? They are the double cheese McWhopper of drive-in numismatics, even if they do cost $50,000 to $150,000 each? So, as I do when on-site at General Motors or Ford or NASA, I suck it in, do the best job I can for my client and keep my opinions to myself. Everyone is happy and I get paid.

So, why not work for Objectivists? More on that, later.

Post 11

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:01am

Michael, have you seen my article The Keating Phenomenon?

Your post makes it sounds as if we have had similar experiences.

Post 12

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:11am

If any objectivists need help with administrative tasks or desktop publishing, I am available as a virtual assistant. This shameless plug brought to you by http://www.wheelerdesignworks.com

Post 13

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:28pm

I make a living in sales, business to business. It's a demanding job, but the thing I like about it is that my performance is so objectively measured, and I get paid based on how well I do (not whether the boss likes me). I have to generate most of my own leads, which involves anywhere from 60 to 70 cold calls per day, and the rest of my day is spent doing follow up calls, email correspondence and writing proposals. I'm also very fortunate to work for a small company (about 40 people total) - people are too busy to worry about micromanaging other people, and there's little bureacracy.  I don't want to do this for the rest of my life, but it works out well for now. Besides, the money I make is far more than the typical jobs available to someone with my degree: music.

Regarding the moral issue, my clients are law firms. I've come to realize that so much of the legal profession is dependent on confusing regulatory monstrosities. Government makes the rules so difficult and imposing that you need to hire a lawyer to help you not get sued or prosecuted. Oh, and if you hire a lawyer and still end up getting sued or prosecuted: guess what? You need a lawyer for litigation! They win either way.

Another moral issue I wrestle with is that my company profits from any tax law change (good or bad) or sweeping regulations. We write and publish very specialized marketing newsletters and brochures on different legal practice niches (estate planning, intellectual property, health care law, labor & employment law, business/corporate matters etc).  We brand a law firm's name on the piece and they use it to market to a niche audience (we save them time and money because it's pain in the ass for a small to medium size firm to write these sorts of things internally - that's non-billable time to them)

Anyhow, back during the election, I thought it was a realistic possibility that Kerry would win and raise taxes on the upper income folks. I was totally against this, of course, but at the same time, in the back of my mind I thought, "if that's the way it is, that's the way it is - I might as well cash in now that attorneys will be looking to market their knowledge of complex loopholes that lots of money for wealthy people."

(Edited by Pete on 3/08, 7:59pm)

Post 14

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:24pm

Very interesting discussion. I'm somewhat torn on this issue. As a military officer, I know that the "big picture" of my occupation, my colleagues, and my service are worthy and noble. But at the lowest level of detail, being part of an amazingly-inefficient bureaucracy is very troubling.

Post 15

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 9:31pm