Most people are always in search of careers that are satisfying and lead to personal satisfaction. However, what is satisfying to one person is not to the other. Other people have left corporate jobs to move to charity or Non- Governmental jobs, because they wanted a satisfying, and by such career shifts, they hoped to work towards directly influencing people’s life positively. It is in this light that McAskill gives out his opinion on what an ethically satisfying career entails. According to McAskill, an ethical career involves getting the most lucrative job available in the market and using it to support charitable movements. The author gives various justifications on why it is ethically fulfilling to take a lucrative career than to work as a charity worker. McAskill insists that even if the lucrative career is viewed as socially unacceptable, but through that job, one can support positive movements that influence the lives of the majority, then such a position can be deemed as satisfying and ethical. The claim that people should take up work even when not viewed as moral has been met with variable resistance. Critics have pointed out that taking up the unethical profession in a bid to help the broader society would still affect another group in one way or the other. For instance, if cutting down trees gives one money to support charity activities, this practice automatically affects the environment and in the long run, affects the deforested community, which renders this practise unethical.
Introduction
William McAskill thesis about the ethics of carrier choices falls typically within the theory of consequentialism. According to this theory, an act is justified to be right or wrong by its ultimate consequences. For example, it is wrong to lie, but if lying could improve the economic status of a majority of people in an economy, then it would be the right thing to do. The main reason why McAskill thesis falls under consequentialism is that he advocates for the notion that one should take a high paying job like in the financial sector (he uses wall street jobs as an example). Then donate most of their earnings to the most cost-effective charities (by cost-effective charities he means those programs that would affect the most significant number of people as opposed to programs that only target to a few individuals. McAskill brands this type of practice as earning to give (EtG), which he claims to be ethically preferable to the dynamics of ethical carriers. However, the controversy sparks when McAskill advocates that it is ethical for one to practise EtG even in instances where the respective high paying job is morally controversial. Because of this notion, McAskill’s thesis is perceived to fall under the consequentialism theory. McAskill thesis mainly contradicts other ideologies that support the paradigm of ethical careers by justifying an ethical profession as one that helps in making a difference in the society, without looking at other factors such as the rights of the worker and the type of occupation. McAskill uses various arguments to explain EtG, they include;
The Financial discrepancy argument; states that the because of the difference in remuneration in multiple professions, one can take a lucrative job and contribute to hiring more charity workers. The Fungibility argument reports that one can efficiently direct their salaries to the most cost-effective charities, but it is challenging to get a job working for the most economical charities. The Uncertainty tenet stipulates that it is easier for one to switch their donations to more cost-effective charities as per contemporary regime, but it is much harder to change careers to a more cost-efficient charity. Therefore, channelling one's contribution could be the most appropriate solution to ethical careers rather than changing jobs to one that positively impacts the society. According to the replaceability argument, if one fails to take a charity job someone else with the same qualifications as you, will take it, but if you do not adopt the EtG route someone else will not donate, but would take the lucrative job instead. Therefore, the product of not taking the charity job and the non-philanthropic person taking the lucrative job is far much worse than taking your lucrative career and the same as taking the charity job.
McAskills Claims
The central question that McAskill focused on in his theory was the definition of careers that were deemed more ethically preferable than others, within the domains of altruistic career paths (McAskill 270). In his view, looking at such an issue was important and could be used to guide young people on the best career paths. McAskill argued in favour of pursuing a lucrative job and later donating ones earning to philanthropic services; he uses two claims to support his points, which are
Weak Claim; McAskill (271), states that it is ethically viable to pursue philanthropy via lucrative jobs that pay higher salaries, than taking a job as a charity worker. According to the reliable claim; regularly, it is ethically acceptable to follow philanthropy via a lucrative but ethically controversial occupation, rather than taking a morally innocuous philanthropic job with lower wages. To understand McAskill’s argument, it is prudent to define the extent that a career could be viewed as ‘morally innocuous.’ According to McAskill, an occupation is morally innocuous if there is no resilient non-consequentialist objection against taking the respective career. While ‘morally controversial’ is used to mean a career that has a sound non-consequentialist reason against pursuing it (MacAskill 271). The strong claim advocates for a lucrative, but a morally controversial job. For instance, MacAskill advocates for running a company that uses child labour, or pollutes the environment, but as long as the company contributes towards philanthropic activities then it should be viewed as ethical. To avoid controversies, McAskill stated that morally controversial careers should not be confused with reprehensible jobs, which are illegal (McAskill 276).
Ham-Based Reason
McAskill discusses the two possible reasoning that critics could use against the consequentialist ideology of pursuing a lucrative job with is morally controversial. One reason that McAskill pre-empts is the harm-based reason based on the notion that some careers cause harm to others (MacAskill 282). The author means that someone’s interest will be impaired when we help other people. For instance, in a situation, where one takes money from a single person to improve the lives of a thousand others whose lives have been impaired. Through the perspective of common sense, this act is impermissible because it infringes the property right of the victim.
The Ham-based reason points out that various lucrative job causes a given society or individual to suffer; for example, the company employing children, definitely infringes on the rights of these children and the community that they came from. Such a situation renders the strong claim ideology not valuable in the long run. To justify the strong claim, McAskill uses the Trolley Problem and the Tactical Bombing case to rationalise the fact that it is morally acceptable to take up the lucrative job even if the job is not appealing ethically. He concludes the argument by stating that it is better to do something than failing to do it at all.
Personal Opinion
Apart from the fact that McAskill’s theory, does not consider the other dynamics in the career world such as considering the person next move for the person that you will displace when landing your lucrative job. What if they turn out to criminal activities just to sustain themselves and their families, would the situation still be considered ethical? Nevertheless, because the theory of consequentialism, considers morality in regards to the greatest good for the most significant number of people, ignoring the fate of the person you displaced and the survival of their dependents, would still be considered ethical. Even so, I do not view such a situation as purely moral.
McAskill’s argument apparently assumes that the in neither cases do you make a difference on the number of hired workers in each industry, which I find slightly incorrect. Similarly, if we were to look at careers from a non-consequentialist perspective, there would be no reason whatsoever to take up the lucrative job. EtG is ethical as compared to pursuing a paradigm ethical career when analysing it from the perspective of the morally innocuous point. However, McAskill does not defend philanthropy through morally reprehensible careers (274). Personally, I think that the difference I would make by practising EtG rather than working for a charity is the variation between the state of affairs that would result if I pursued EtG and the existing situation if I pursued charity work, considering other factors such as individual’s nature and other aspects of the career world. In other words, the difference I would make by practising EtG consists of the effect that I could directly cause if I did charity work. For instance, I today work as a charity teacher to less fortunate children, there is no doubt that I have made a difference to the recipients of my services. If I had not taught these children someone else would have just done the same but would he or she make the same impact on the same people. Contrary MacAskill stipulates that EtG makes the most significant result only in a technical perspective, however, paradigm ethical careers, apparently make more influence in the ordinary-language sense than EtG.
The reconstruction of MacAskill’s argument for the weak claim makes EtG much more of a positive difference in a technical sense than pursuing a paradigm ethical career, which is illustrated by the cases from replaceability, fungibility, financial discrepancy and uncertainty. If someone makes a more positive effect than the other does in technical terms, and there are no non-consequentialists reasons against the first one, then the first could be morally preferable to the second. However, this line of thought ignores the possibility of non-consequentialist reasons that advocate for a paradigmatic ethical career. By delineation, there are no substantial non-consequentialist explanations against EtG through the innocuous ethical job. Hence, EtG via a morally innocuous profession usually is ethically desirable than a paradigm noble profession.
In a practical sense, most people who have the most significant impact in the world by promoting positive effects have not done so using the earning to give a strategy but did so through their work. A good example is that most people, who won the Nobel peace prize, do not gain it by through earning to give, but through personal contributions. However, there have been few exceptions such as Bill Gates, through his “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey, the Serena sisters, among other countable personalities. Whoever according to McAskill’s notion, people who had immersed wealth like Pablo Escobar through drug dealings should be considered ethical just because they practised charity. One characteristic of these personalities is that they appear to have a high ratio of wealth to the direct impact of their work and therefore, seem to be unrepresentative.
Work cited
MacAskill, William. "Replaceability, career choice, and making a difference." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17.2 (2014): 269-283.
