|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Professional obligation Vs Beliefs
|
Karl Kroenen
Apprentice
# 16822
|
Posted
What should people do when their professional obligations come into conflict with their religious beliefs? In many cases their continued livelihood will depend on their decision. Here are some real life examples (some are in the public domain, some are not).
1. A Christian fireman who believes that homosexuality is a sin is ordered to staff a stand at a gay pride event.
2. An Christian army officer is ordered to take an enemy position in order to secure a high-publicity victory. He knows this will result in casualties. He also knows that it would in fact be possible to negotiate the enemy's surrender.
3. A Christian GP is asked by a young lady to arrange/refer her for termination of a healthy pregancy after contraception has failed (let us assume British law in this case - where it is 'technically' legal to terminate in the first 24 weeks).
I am sure there are many, many other examples - possibly slightly more subtle - that are known to, or have been experienced by, shipmates. (I don't want this to degenerate into the particular rights and wrongs of gay rights/abortion etc. - these are simply examples - the issue is what to do when ones beliefs come up against the reality of ones day job).
--------------------
God loves you so much that He created Hell, just in case you don't love Him back.
Posts: 34 | From: Bristol | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:
3. A Christian GP is asked by a young lady to arrange/refer her for termination of a healthy pregancy after contraception has failed (let us assume British law in this case - where it is 'technically' legal to terminate in the first 24 weeks).
Do you actually know UK abortion legislation? It basically says that:
quote:
from NHS Pages on Abortion
The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:
abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy
So if in the eyes of a doctor there is no risk to the mother then the doctor need not sign. However as it requires any two doctors and that at 24 weeks there are so many unknowns in a pregnancy it is relatively easy to find doctors who will sign.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Karl Kroenen
...asked by a young lady to arrange/refer her for termination of a healthy pregancy after contraception has failed (let us assume British law in this case - where it is 'technically' legal to terminate in the first 24 weeks).
1. There is nothing "technical" (your quotation marks) about the legality of terminations before 24 weeks: in the UK it is the law of the land whether or not you, personally, agree with it.
2. If you are so concerned about freedom of conscience it is curious that you choose to do so from the anonymity of the persona of the SS Doctor from Hellboy.
Just sayin'
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I think there's a difference between situations where lives are at stake - situation 2 for example, and those where they are not as in situation 1. Lest this descend into DH territory, I shall hold fire on situation 3!
What actually happened in the first two situations, do you know?
[Crossposted with Gwai]
[ 09. October 2013, 19:28: Message edited by: iamchristianhearmeroar ]
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl Kroenen
Apprentice
# 16822
|
Posted
Yes I know it well. As you rightly say it relies on 2 doctors agreeing, and if one won't, another will be found very easily. The law does not quite work as originally envisaged, however, because statistically an early abortion is safer to the mothers physical health than continuing with a full pregnancy, hence on this basis they are generally approved by means of the metaphorical 'rubber stamp'. By the same reckoning, the fireman and the army officer - if they refused the order - would simply be replaced/circumvented and the act at stake would be delegated to another. The careers of the objectors would likely be ruined, but the end result the same. Some would hold their resistance to be a futile act, others that their aquiesence was cowardly. It's not an easy one.
--------------------
God loves you so much that He created Hell, just in case you don't love Him back.
Posts: 34 | From: Bristol | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl Kroenen
Apprentice
# 16822
|
Posted
quote:
What actually happened in the first two situations, do you know?
The firemen were sacked:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6235039.stm
The army officer (this was in the Falklands) took it upomn himself to order the release of two POWs and instructed them to return to their regiment and suggest a pre-emptive surrender to their commanders (as opposed to an 'organised' negotiation through official channels which was a big no-no as far as UK authorities were concerned). The gamble worked and the Argenitian unit surrendered prior to the attack. The UK Forces were obliged, under international law, to accept their surrender.
--------------------
God loves you so much that He created Hell, just in case you don't love Him back.
Posts: 34 | From: Bristol | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What do you mean by manning the booth at a gay pride parade? Is the fireman there doing his job as a fireman? If so, then, the fireman has an obligation to do whatever needs done by a fireman at a gay pride parade. The fireman's superiors can't and shouldn't be allowed to force the firefighter to man a booth at a gay pride parade that implies he endorses the message of the gay pride parade.
The soldier should obey orders. The soldier either volunteered for military service (most likely) or upon being drafted did not qualify to be a conscientious objector. Negotiating a surrender might be a possibility but deciding what constitutes acceptable terms is above his pay grade. Perhaps, Christians shouldn't be soldiers in the first place. Once you decide to become a soldier, you must follow all lawful orders.
Don't know about abortion in the UK. I will say that no Christian doctor should be forced to perform an abortion under any circumstance. Shouldn't be too hard to find a doctor whose conscience isn't bothered by performing abortions.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
The sacking appears to be unrelated to the gay pride march, according to that story at least.
It's the last paragraph, the one that starts out "Nine officers from a different watch at the same station . . . "
As I understand from other news accounts, the basic situation was nine firefighters were told to distribute fire safety pamphlets at a local Gay Pride event and refused, some citing moral objections to homosexuality and others claiming personal embarrassment. The idea that public servants can pick and choose which members of the public to serve based on personal prejudice seems rather ugly.
In the case of the soldier, he ultimately obeyed orders insofar as he took the enemy position he was ordered to take. He just did so by means different than those originally ordered.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
Yes, but according to the article they were only disciplined, not sacked. Not that I'm saying it's right that they should have been disciplined, but that report at least does not say they were sacked.
Firemen *embarrassed* at a gay pride march?! I musht be dreaming!
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
In case 1 the fireman is there to protect the public.ALL the people no asking gay or not gay.
Case 2 I see is based on what happened in 1982. I knew a man RM back in the 1950s refused to train as a sniper on reasons of belief aqnd his superiors saLUTED HIM.
cASE 3 DH in extremis
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
My suggestions on how to handle these situations?
3) Give serious consideration before becoming a GP to the fact that women are likely to ask for you to arrange terminations for them. I know of one group GP surgery where it was prominently advertised on all literature that "Dr X will only advise on natural methods of contraception". I presume this saved both Dr X and the patients a lot of bother, because those wanting condoms, the pill, an abortion, etc, would just ask to see a different doctor at the practice. Obviously, the situation would be more tricky if you were a solo-GP surgery or a locum. I think again some kind of advance warning to patients might be helpful in order to save everybody time and heart-ache.
1)
Option a) (Depending on what the purpose of the stand at the gay pride event is), talk to those at the gay pride event about how great the fire service is and how they should definitely e.g. consider a career in the fire service / get some smoke alarms fitted / request a fire safety check of their home, without making any mention of your personal views about homosexuality.
Option b) Speak to your manager, stating that you don't think you're the best person to represent the fire service at such an event and that you have strong personal objections to doing so. Note that it is not part of your central job description and ask whether you can volunteer to do the most unpopular other tasks needed of your team that week instead.
Scenario 2 is by far the most difficult for me to come up with an answer for. As I understand it, members of the armed forces very much have to be able to a) follow orders from superiors and b) accept that their work will cause loss of life. So again, there's a role for thinking carefully before you take the job what moral dilemmas it might throw your way and whether you think you could cope with those. Once in the job and faced with Scenario 2, I guess I would try to persuade my superiors to negotiate instead of attacking and if I couldn't persuade my superiors and felt that the course of action they favoured was demonstrably immoral and unjust I would consider resigning my position.
But then, I personally would never become a member of the armed forces anyway and a big part of the reason I'm a social-worker is because the ethics and values of social work as a profession tend to fit quite closely with my own. (Plus, social workers are always waffling on about needing to be aware of different people having different values, etc, anyway - so there's sometimes a bit more scope for saying that you disagree with a colleague / manager / supervisor on such-and-such a moral issue, because of x, y and z.)
X-posted with quite a few people so will go back and read those posts now.
[ 09. October 2013, 20:17: Message edited by: Zoey ]
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Don't know about abortion in the UK. I will say that no Christian doctor should be forced to perform an abortion under any circumstance. Shouldn't be too hard to find a doctor whose conscience isn't bothered by performing abortions.
(Your responses to the other scenarios are correct in my view).
With the abortion issue, the requirement is to make a referral. In my area, this means that the GP refers to the hospital in the area which is licenced to do abortions. I am not certain, but the OP and follow-ups suggest problems with making referral if the conscience of the doctor so dictates.
My view is that a doctor who cannot see beyond their own issues to respond to the needs and desires of the patient needs to review their professionalism, and to be prepared for a professional conduct inquiry. You don't have to do the thing contrary to your beliefs, but you mustn't move into the direction of burdening others with your beliefs. So you refer along.
Some jobs involve dealing with things on a regular basis that are contrary to personal beliefs, say those who deal with HIV/AIDS, which may be about drugs and sexuality. Those who have troubles with these issues related to the job need to self-select themselves away from such work.
Professionalism involves perspective taking and dealing with the imperfections of the world and all of her people as best as possible. Standards for self may be rather specific and well adhered to, for others, forgiveness and tolerance. And ensuring that any judgements are not made by you.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Yes, but according to the article they were only disciplined, not sacked. Not that I'm saying it's right that they should have been disciplined, but that report at least does not say they were sacked.
It's possible that the discrepancy is due to the four month difference between the two articles. What started out as a disciplinary action might have eventually led to firing.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
It may well have done, but neither article reports that. The grauniad reports that one firefighter was demoted to the extent of £5k a year. The BBC reports that firefighters from a different watch were sacked for a different offence.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All bad examples. Badly put. The firemen weren't sacked. The officer knew no such thing, including the outcome of the attack and it's profile.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Every job I've had, going in I tried to think of things I might be asked to do that would too deeply violate my sense of what behavior God wants of me, so I would know ahead of time when to quit. Never happened but came close a few times. (A quick example, one boss proposed an affair. I said no, not knowing if it meant my job. It didn't.)
Helps that I was young and single in the jobs where the possibility came closest, easier to envision quitting when you don't have a mortgage or kids to feed. But I think there is a principle that at some point you might have to choose between your job or your following God. Or do repulsive things if you believe God wants you to stay in that job more than God wants you not doing those things and there's no third choice.
No one promised Christianity would be easy.
Where the line is, is individual. I personally wouldn't put personal embarrassment as crossing the line. Reason to ask to trade assignments with anther, not reason enough to risk the job.
Would I tell you how to hire a thug to murder your neighbor (assuming I knew how)? No. One doc may feel like that where another doesn't in a referral to a dead horse (abortion, euthanasia, sex change operation, whatever). And I wouldn't be surprised if that military officer's career was quietly sidetracked if the brass wanted the showy battle publicity.
Bottom line, God first. Even if it hurts.
But if there are lots of times when you face what to you are "God or the job" choices, you need to think about whether you are in the wrong career, in which case you will be much happier moving to a different career or a job that applies your skills a different way.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Every job I've had, going in I tried to think of things I might be asked to do that would too deeply violate my sense of what behavior God wants of me, so I would know ahead of time when to quit. ....
Bottom line, God first. Even if it hurts.
You must have a private line to God that I didn't get. The most important thing is not to harm others. The rest is muddling through and trying to do the best possible in difficult to figure out circumstances.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
There are much easier examples to provide, such as the UK cases that went to the European court of human rights (or whatever it's official title is).
And most of them lost. The only case where the Christian won was when the court said it couldn't be said to be a genuine job requirement not to wear a cross. Every time there WAS a genuine job requirement, the religious sensitivities lost out. The civil celebrant who didn't want to do gay civil unions wasn't allowed to pick and choose which parts of his job he wanted.
And I think that's the way it should be. No-one has a 'right' to do the job of their choosing. You get paid to do a job. And while you should have plenty of freedom to choose which job you want to do out of the ones the market offers, you don't then get the further right to tailor the job to yourself.
[ 10. October 2013, 02:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Every job I've had, going in I tried to think of things I might be asked to do that would too deeply violate my sense of what behavior God wants of me, so I would know ahead of time when to quit. ....
Bottom line, God first. Even if it hurts.
You must have a private line to God that I didn't get. The most important thing is not to harm others. The rest is muddling through and trying to do the best possible in difficult to figure out circumstances.
Perhaps you failed to notice the example of a boss asking for sex? Is it hard to guess unwilling sexual adultery is something God dislikes?
Anyway, we each have to live with our own best understanding of what God wants of us. If *you* think *this* behavior asked of you (whatever *this* behavior is) violates a basic and important principle or value of God's, do you act on that understanding of God or not?
Yes a lot of times we muddle through uncertain, but sometimes you are directed to do something you are sure is flat out wrong - inflate bills for example, dump toxic waste into the river instead of taking it to the processing plant, order unnecessary tests from the lab the boss owns, just to name a few friends have faced and refused to do, knowing it might cost them their jobs. (Not all were Christians, you don't have to be Christian to have a strong moral code.)
If you have any moral sense, you are going to run into problems in life and risk being penalized for standing up for what you believe is right instead of going along with the boss or the crowd.
What you can't do is say "no, I'm not going along with that" and expect to be honored instead of criticized by those who want you to do it.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LucyP
Shipmate
# 10476
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No-one has a 'right' to do the job of their choosing. You get paid to do a job. And while you should have plenty of freedom to choose which job you want to do out of the ones the market offers, you don't then get the further right to tailor the job to yourself.
I think it's more complicated than that. There may be many jobs out there where no ethical grey areas trouble the consciences of workers, but conflicts can arise in many settings, and it's simplistic to dismiss someone with a troubled conscience by telling them to just do their job.
Dan Ariely, in his book "The honest truth about dishonesty" gives a number of examples. He points out that people don't just cheat to get ahead for themselves, but also so that they won't “let the side down”- they are told that what they see as cheating is expected of them because the alternative is harmful to the business. Thus, an accountant may be asked to rewrite a report so that it will make a more favourable impression to the shareholders, even though in her view the revised report is deliberately misleading the shareholders.
Similarly, a politician's staff member may be asked to collude with dubious expense claiming, or a government driver asked to issue receipts in a certain format for cab charges so that they hide the fact that the politician was on a personal jaunt.
I know someone who was fired from his job as a used car salesman because he refused to lie to customers (though his boss would have used a more morally-neutral word than "lie". ) Is it "tailoring the job to yourself" to try to sell used cars to people without lying to them?
Even when something conforms to the law, that doesn't make it right. Torture is legal in many countries, and doctors may be coerced into assessing victims of torture to state whether they are fit for more interrogation. Saying that “doctors must subject their consciences to the law in all circumstances” (as ISTM the academic ethicist Julian Savulescu and his colleagues advocate) ignores the fact that law makers are fallible.
Posts: 235 | From: my sanctuary | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Nicely put LucyP.
"Only following orders" in all weathers is one extreme, as is the narcissistic view that one can be autonomous in every finely balanced moral judgement.
There is obviously a difference between refusing to be complicit in fraud or torture and refusing to engage in fire-safety activities in a gay pride event. The former is concerned with the value of other humans and their rights not to be defrauded or torture, and the latter seems to me to be denying the value of other human beings and their rights.
I can understand someone taking the view that gay sex is immoral, but the message of refusing to engage in usual fire-safety promotion seems to suggest one would prefer that they burn.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
In any version of christianity I know of, the obligation is to follow conscience. Is there any doubt of this?
Many ethical issues are complex, and many people will have difficulty sorting out right from wrong.
But as I understand christian teaching, if you genuinely believe something is wrong, you should not do it, even if your belief is based on shaky reasoning.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But as I understand christian teaching, if you genuinely believe something is wrong, you should not do it, even if your belief is based on shaky reasoning.
That's not the problem. The problem is that some christians want to be able to refuse to do their jobs on the grounds of conscience while still being paid to do them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
So if a Christian civil servant was instructed to 'be creative ' in filing a ministerial exes claim and refused to do so on the ground that it was sinful to do so, should s/he still be paid to do the job?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No, I am not saying 'just do your job'. I am saying you have a choice. EITHER get paid for doing a job, or don't do the job.
What I have little time for is someone who decides they're NOT going to do the job, but still expects their employer to provide them with financial support.
As for being required to do something that is illegal, well that's obvious. Refuse. Otherwise you yourself are committing a crime. Well, actually, I suppose you CAN agree to do it but then you have to face the consequences of your choice. Exactly the same as you have to face the consequences of your choice if you refuse: there's a 'negative' consequence of not getting paid by the criminal who tried to get you to be a criminal.
But if something is legal, but you don't want to do it... okay fine, follow your moral conscience. But it's a mystery to me why anyone thinks they are still entitled to be paid at the same time.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Ideally the civil servant should whistle blow and resign.
I think we have to cope with the complexity that sometimes it is right and noble to refuse to do your job and sometimes it isn't.
We should neither be so narcissistic to believe we alone determine right and wrong setting all other societal frameworks aside nor so morally-relativistic as to view everything as a simple issue of obedience to the state.
[ 10. October 2013, 12:36: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
If what they're being asked to do is illegal, then it's the boss who asks for it that should be fired. If not, and if they genuinely can't reconcile their job with their conscience, then maybe they should reconsider if it's the right job for them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
Even when something conforms to the law, that doesn't make it right. Torture is legal in many countries, and doctors may be coerced into assessing victims of torture to state whether they are fit for more interrogation. Saying that “doctors must subject their consciences to the law in all circumstances” (as ISTM the academic ethicist Julian Savulescu and his colleagues advocate) ignores the fact that law makers are fallible.
No. Bad analysis. You've just leapt from a law that torture is legal to a law that coercing a doctor to say that a torture victim is okay is also legal.
I doubt such a law exists. Why bother having a law requiring a doctor's opinion if it's legal to ignore the doctor's actual opinion?
[ 10. October 2013, 12:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think we have to cope with the complexity that sometimes it is right and noble to refuse to do your job and sometimes it isn't.
Absolutely. But if someone thinks it is noble to refuse to do their job, I would sincerely hope that this nobility extends to not receiving pay checks in return for their refusal. Otherwise it's a highly selective and self-serving form of nobility.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think LucyP's broader point that there are circumstances where legality does not dictate morality is sound though.
I think the refusal of the paycheque depends on the situation. If it is a one-off or one is appealing to Caesar and expecting to be supported then resignation might not be a reasonable expectation.
For instance, I am asked to fiddle the books. I refuse and it never happens again. It seems over the top to expect me to resign over that.
On the other hand perhaps it does become a regular affair, and I report the matter to an ultimate superior. Only if it transpires that the whole culture of the company supports this particular instance do I start feeling the need to resign. While my complaint is going through the company's system need I stop taking my pay?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
How about this one?
The key to this discussion, in my mind, is right there in the first line of the original post: professionalism. Professional people are, or ought to be, expected to be responsible for using their judgement and experience to make a decision when faced with choices such as the ones listed. The soldier who was supposed to be obeying orders knew from his experience what would work and acted accordingly. Stanislav Petrov in the BBC story had the experience, and perhaps the instinct, to recognize a probable false alarm, and he was guided to the right decision. Some might even go so far as to suggest that God held his hand for those few critical moments - he didn't need to be a Christian for that to happen.
Good grief - 100 posts. This has all the warning signs of serious addiction.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This issue came up in my profession (psychotherapy) in relation to gay conversion, where some Christian therapists argued that they saw gay sex as wrong, and would tell gay clients that.
Eventually, conversion therapy was banned in nearly all professional organizations, as unprofessional.
Of course, there may be cases where somebody's behaviour seems wrong to the therapist - a few decades ago, some therapists refused to work with people taking drugs, but this has diminished considerably.
But I suppose the bottom line here is that you shouldn't become a therapist, if you want to criticize people. So you will get clients who commit adultery, have promiscuous life-styles, take drugs, and so on.
But there are no-no areas, mainly to do with abuse and illegality. Thus, if a client was physically abusing his wife, I would tell him to stop, or I would stop seeing him, and might report him to the police.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
This is an awful OP for a good conversation. You all have been quite careful to stick to "professionalism" and avoid the double Dead Horses in the straw man examples. But I just want to remind you all that both homosexuality and abortion are DH topics. Please continue to exercise the same care you have shown in avoiding the specifics of those topics. If that ends up becoming too detrimental to the development of the thread, we can move it as necessary. But the subject of the demands of one's profession vs the demands of one's conscience is worthy of Purgatorial discussion, and so far so good.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think LucyP's broader point that there are circumstances where legality does not dictate morality is sound though.
I think the refusal of the paycheque depends on the situation. If it is a one-off or one is appealing to Caesar and expecting to be supported then resignation might not be a reasonable expectation.
For instance, I am asked to fiddle the books. I refuse and it never happens again. It seems over the top to expect me to resign over that.
On the other hand perhaps it does become a regular affair, and I report the matter to an ultimate superior. Only if it transpires that the whole culture of the company supports this particular instance do I start feeling the need to resign. While my complaint is going through the company's system need I stop taking my pay?
I have no problem with any of this. But I doubt that most of the cases that have arisen and caused legal/media controversy were about single isolated incidents. So I wasn't thinking in that vein.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I think it's worth pointing out that for me as a public servant (and any other public/civil servants on the Ship), this question automatically comes with the territory.
It's a fact of life that as a public servant for any length of time, you will work for governments of different political colours. Hence, unless you are a swinging voter who has extraordinary powers of prescience, you will work for governments whose policies you disagree with. Heck, even if you work for a government that you voted for at the previous election, they'll almost certainly have policies you disagree with. Perhaps strongly.
But it's drummed in from the get-go that your job is to implement government policy. Including the ones you don't like. Really really don't like. Whether the source of you dislike is a kind of belief labelled as 'religious' or a kind of belief that doesn't have that label really isn't to the point.
These days I write legislation. I haven't yet been asked to write any legislation that I thought was clearly morally wrong. I have, on one occasion I can recall, been asked to write legislation that I thought was really dumb and unnecessary. I explained why I thought it was really dumb and unnecessary. At least twice. The client confirmed that they understood what I was saying and still wanted the legislation, and explained their reasons.
And I still thought the legislation was really dumb and unnecessary.
Then I wrote it. (And in fact got a great deal of praise for doing so, and the way I'd handled talking about alternative options.)
Because that's my job. Part of my job IS to raise issues and concerns about the laws I'm asked to write, but at the end of the day if it's clear that the legislation is wanted and being asked for with open eyes, it's my job to write it no matter what I personally think of the wisdom of doing so. I get paid to write laws, not write laws that I like.
(I don't even get paid to write laws that interest me. Thankfully most of them do, but while I'm sure my bosses do their best to give everybody interesting work, some laws are boring to basically everybody. EVEN legislative drafters. Do you think we'd get away with saying we're not going to draft an annual fee increase in line with inflation because none of the drafters find replacing one column of numbers with another column of numbers exciting?)
I might add that thinking that a particular element of a piece of legislation is 'wrong' or dumb happens far more frequently. But the same principle applies: if it's clear that something's wanted despite my belief it's a bad idea, then professionalism means it goes in.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think I see the issues as orientation or concern about issues and necessity of work on the one hand, and the sense of entitlement on the other.
If someone has an issue of conscience with their work, obviously the noble thing is to resign and give up the job. The counsellor who didn't want to counsel gay couples is one I recall from these forums. Plainly he wanted to keep his job. Maybe he had the necessity of work operating for him as well: bills to pay, children to feed etc. The idea that an employer owes a person work, or owes anything other than pay for assigned duties is a newer development in mentality. I don't think the employer owed this man anything in this situation because the job itself includes as a care function this duty.
Are we owed jobs and work that fits with our personal values, views or orientation? Can we bend a job description to fit with our personal beliefs? Does the argument that the job pays well and that I have expanded my lifestyle and obligations to spend the income hold any credence? Is it a matter for discipline in the workplace if the employee for reasons of conscience does not want to comply?
We're seeing in Canada a debate re secularism in Quebec where the banning of religious clothing is being debated. This means no turbans, hijabs, yarmulkas, crucifixes etc. While there strange exceptions for some Christian symbols in the proposal, should we not see some limits on the intrusion of belief into the workplace?
At what point should the personal beliefs hold precedence over the duty to provide professional service? I'd say the line is at the level of burdening the served person with the belief of the service provider. Thou shalt not impose thy beliefs on others.
I also hold that reasonable accommodation for beliefs is the way, with ongoing messy debate as to what "reasonable" involves. And that there is no right in any absolute sense to carry forth beliefs because any one person's beliefs must be balanced with the impact (including beliefs but not excluding other things) on others. The discussion and resolution of such issues will be troublesome, argumentative and difficult. But necessary I think.
The entitlement issue? As an employer myself, we want to be reasonable. But you have only the entitlement to the job and work so long as you add value and pay your way without giving me as employer headaches and things to worry about when I'm not at work. If your personal issues, whether health, family, beliefs, personality start to impact on your professional work, we begin to talk about your tenure with us, and will tend to want to have you move along. We won't be cruel with it, but we will discuss it all with you and see if we can't come to something reasonable with you to either alter your conduct or to leave. We would try to bend your work away from what if troublesome for your beliefs, akin to not referring people in need of family planning services to an anti-abortion oriented person. But we would not tolerate anything in the direction of "evangelism" about this. At all. And the degree of your stridency would impact on our moves in the direction of influencing you to leave. We've had people both rein in their behaviour, and leave in such situations.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think it's worth pointing out that for me as a public servant (and any other public/civil servants on the Ship), this question automatically comes with the territory.
Yep. Daily occurrence, here.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I might add that thinking that a particular element of a piece of legislation is 'wrong' or dumb happens far more frequently. But the same principle applies: if it's clear that something's wanted despite my belief it's a bad idea, then professionalism means it goes in.
Absolutely. My employer (a large urban school district) does things I think are idiotic all the time. Part of my job is letting my superiors know when they're about to do something stupid. But if they insist, we do it - because that's part of the job I signed up for.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
If someone has an issue of conscience with their work, obviously the noble thing is to resign and give up the job.
True.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Are we owed jobs and work that fits with our personal values, views or orientation?
No.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Can we bend a job description to fit with our personal beliefs?
Maybe. Depends on the job. But generally, no.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does the argument that the job pays well and that I have expanded my lifestyle and obligations to spend the income hold any credence?
Not in the least. If you can't, for whatever reason, do the job that pays for that lifestyle - then it's time to change your lifestyle.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is it a matter for discipline in the workplace if the employee for reasons of conscience does not want to comply?
It can be - but see below.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
At what point should the personal beliefs hold precedence over the duty to provide professional service? I'd say the line is at the level of burdening the served person with the belief of the service provider. Thou shalt not impose thy beliefs on others.
Bingo!
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I also hold that reasonable accommodation for beliefs is the way, with ongoing messy debate as to what "reasonable" involves. And that there is no right in any absolute sense to carry forth beliefs because any one person's beliefs must be balanced with the impact (including beliefs but not excluding other things) on others. The discussion and resolution of such issues will be troublesome, argumentative and difficult. But necessary I think.
Reasonable accommodations are necessary - as you note, the devil is in how "reasonable" is defined. A Muslim supermarket checkout person who does not want to handle pork? To my mind, not reasonable - pork sells well in this country, and it is unlikely you will be able to do your job and avoid it. Same supermarket worker wants to wear hijab at work? Not a problem, so long as it generally conforms to the dress code. (Both of these are from a local retailer - we have a large Somali Muslim population hereabouts.)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think the refusal of the paycheque depends on the situation.
I'm not sure why anyone should *refuse* a paycheck if the boss is willing to continue paying you in spite of saying no to a task - whether once or often (although often suggests a work environment you might be happier leaving).
The problem is claiming a *right* to a paycheck in spite of saying no. You have to accept that refusing to do part of what the boss sees as your job will cost you. No one appreciates someone elses moral stance interfering with their goal.
And yes morality is different from legality. Sometimes things are legal but not moral (in your understanding of morality).
Occasionally the moral thing to do is illegal. You may have to figure out a way to a moral solution that ensures no one (other than you) gets hurt for the illegality.
Morality is not always easy and in this "fallen world" it's sometimes costly. But you don't have to ask for punishment such a reject a paycheck they are willing to hand you in spite of your moral stance.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Of course the pay cheque is a metaphor/synecdoche/symbolic-sort-of-thing. Or something beyond the literal actual bit of paper anyway.
What I mean is that no-one (should) actually withhold a pay cheque for a month because you aren't doing your job, and no-one is likely to say they didn't feel they'd deserved their salary for a particular month but they'll hang around and have another go next month.
I'm talking about being fired or keep the job when I refer to being offered or taking the pay cheque as a way of emphasizing that there is a two-way contract involved.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So if a Christian civil servant was instructed to 'be creative ' in filing a ministerial exes claim and refused to do so on the ground that it was sinful to do so, should s/he still be paid to do the job?
Religion and conscience are, thankfully, irrelevant to the question. A Muslim, Sikh or atheist civil servant would face exactly the same dilemma - being asked by a superior to commit a breach of trust. If a government or business relies merely on their employees' religion to make sure things are done right, they've lost the plot already. So a Christian civil servant - like the others - will do what s/he is told and will cover her/his own ass by making sure the boss' name is on it.
Christians who worry about reconciling work and religion should talk to some religious minorities and find out how they have to adjust to live and work in our culture. My Muslim dentist, being an independent businessperson, can close his practice on Fridays, but my Muslim coworkers all work Monday - Friday without complaint. When there's a working lunch, observant Jews, Muslims and Hindus will brown-bag. When we had prayers at my previous office (looong story), our SDA staff member would leave the room and return when the prayer was over, but he still did his job, which included organizing Christmas events.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl Kroenen
Apprentice
# 16822
|
Posted
At the risk of falling foul of Godwins Law(although I haven't formally triggered it as don't have an argument to loose, I'm simply interested in reading peoples views on ethics) I think the most extreme examples - as ever - come from the most extreme regimes. I have been reading a book about the German invasion of the Soviet Union - a particularly brutal campaign which positively encouraged atrocities against the civillian populations. Many of the German regiments, it seems, had army chaplains attached to them. Many of the chaplians, and indeed the professional German regular army officers as well, had joined up long before the rise of National Socialism had twisted the chivalry of warfare. Some of them (not all, it has to be said) tried to persuade the high command to halt the atrocities out of either Christian motivation or simple common sense morality, and did what they could (without much success)to bring an element of humanity to the Front within their own sphere of influence. Had they objected outright, the result would likely have been execution - and the situation would have continued as before. They therefore found themselves in a curious situation - working for a brutal and imoral regime, in spite of their strong (and no doubt publically moderated) opposition.
[ 10. October 2013, 19:17: Message edited by: Karl Kroenen ]
--------------------
God loves you so much that He created Hell, just in case you don't love Him back.
Posts: 34 | From: Bristol | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No-one has a 'right' to do the job of their choosing. You get paid to do a job. And while you should have plenty of freedom to choose which job you want to do out of the ones the market offers, you don't then get the further right to tailor the job to yourself.
I am not sure that maternity rights could be justified under that principle. Nor rights for people with disabilities.
The practice of religion is generally recognised as a right. That means that an employer is obliged to make reasonable accommodations for it, just as they are obliged to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities or people with small children.
The cases where the claim to a right to practice religion seem objectionable are those where the practice of religion implies discrimination against other people's rights. A registrar oughtn't to claim a religious objection to interracial marriage, nor a B&B owner claim a religious objection to providing a room for a mixed-race couple. But that limitation doesn't extend to jobs where discrimination isn't as much of a problem.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Let me address the second hypothetical:
2. An Christian army officer is ordered to take an enemy position in order to secure a high-publicity victory. He knows this will result in casualties. He also knows that it would in fact be possible to negotiate the enemy's surrender.
Question: how would the office know the enemy is willing to surrender? Has the enemy signaled with a white flag? Has there been some back channel communication (such as overheard radio chatter)?
If the enemy has indicated he is willing to negotiate a surrender, then it is the duty of the officer to try to bring that surrender about, first and foremost. However, I would say the officer is acting responsibly to keep the pressure on while peace negotiations are taking place as long as the officer does not put his/her command in undue jeopardy.
Now if the position has to be taken by force, another set of questions have to be addressed. First and foremost can the position remain in your hands? Vietnam should have taught us that we cannot waste human resources to take a target only to abandon it a couple of days later. Second, what is the acceptable cost for taking the target?
Seal team six thought it was an acceptable cost to take on the compound Bin Laden was hiding in. However, when they attempted to take Abdulkadir Mohamed Abdulkadir,the Al Shabaab leader believed responsible for the Kenyan Mall incident. they realized it was not worth the cost and withdrew without any American Casualties.
Military questions are never easy to answer. What might be right in one situation may be wrong in another.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:
1. A Christian fireman who believes that homosexuality is a sin is ordered to staff a stand at a gay pride event.
Do you mean like an information stand? Because in the US they'd ask for volunteers, usually first from the LGBTQ Firefighters of [City] group.
If you meant like a safety stand, suck it up buttercup, I'm sure a LGBTQ fire fighter's had to work the safety stand at the KKK Rally and Bonfire Night. You are a public servant even if you don't like those kind of public, it's their taxes what are paying your salary.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There was NOTHING strong about it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:
What should people do when their professional obligations come into conflict with their religious beliefs? In many cases their continued livelihood will depend on their decision. Here are some real life examples (some are in the public domain, some are not).
1. A Christian fireman who believes that homosexuality is a sin is ordered to staff a stand at a gay pride event.
2. An Christian army officer is ordered to take an enemy position in order to secure a high-publicity victory. He knows this will result in casualties. He also knows that it would in fact be possible to negotiate the enemy's surrender.
3. A Christian GP is asked by a young lady to arrange/refer her for termination of a healthy pregancy after contraception has failed (let us assume British law in this case - where it is 'technically' legal to terminate in the first 24 weeks).
I am sure there are many, many other examples - possibly slightly more subtle - that are known to, or have been experienced by, shipmates. (I don't want this to degenerate into the particular rights and wrongs of gay rights/abortion etc. - these are simply examples - the issue is what to do when ones beliefs come up against the reality of ones day job).
Surely the fact that these people say that they are Christians is by-the-by, your examples are questions of personal morality not religious belief. Do you think that an Atheist could not be faced with such dilemmas? The situations may, for some, conflict with the morality which is associated with their religious belief - but the questions are still ones of morality are they not? Do you think that only religious people are faced with moral decisions? (If yes then I'm a religious atheist!)
PS what about a battlefield situation where a field commander orders his troops to follow him in a suicidal frontal assault and sets off towards a well dug in machine gun. Do you follow him and accept the probability that by doing so you will leave your wife/children/loved ones to get by without you or avoid the possibility of court-martial and then take out the enemy emplacement without losing any personnel (other than your, now deceased, commander of course)?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
