Thread: Professional obligation Vs Beliefs Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026387
Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on
:
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).
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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'
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Let's remember that abortion is a Dead Horse, and discussion of it should go down to that board. Discussion of professional obligation is great up here though.
[ 09. October 2013, 19:27: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on
:
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.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
The sacking appears to be unrelated to the gay pride march, according to that story at least.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
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!
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
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
Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on
:
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 ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
How about this one?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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?
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
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
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
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.)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Dafyd: I'd say that still works with Orfeo's principle, if one makes an exception for things that society agrees on. Maternity, disability etc are different because almost all of us agree we want to live in a society where mothers can be with their children, where people with disabilities are part of society, etc. We are not all concerned with living in a society where my particular moral objection to Xing is supported. In fact, some people strongly want to X.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
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.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
There was NOTHING strong about it.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
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)?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
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.
I've never heard of a case of an individual being able to negotiate maternity leave (if that's what you're referring to) into an employment contract that didn't have it already. But that's probably because in this country maternity leave is a given.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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?
I didn't say there was a law to coerce the doctor. Savulescu et al propose a moral (or work-ethical) obligation for the doctor to subject his or her conscience to the law while at work. On the whole, this should be what most upstanding citizens do most of the time, and as a general principle it is helpful. However, if it becomes a new moral absolute it is inadequate to deal with a (work or legal) culture that has gone terribly wrong, for reasons of financial or other gain.
To return to the torture example, in a regime allowing torture, a doctor might be told it was expected as part of their job description as a local medical officer,(which may in turn be a compulsory postgraduate requirement prior to achieving full registration), police medical officer or army medic. If the torture is legal, the doctor has a moral decision to make about whether they "just do their job that they are being paid for", resign and emigrate (if that is even an option), or whistleblow at the risk of their own life and that of their family.
The reason for involving the doctor is not to make the torture process legal, but to ensure the prisoner does not die before maximum information has been obtained. The doctor is being asked for an opinion on whether the patient is close to death, not whether the torturers are doing a morally-right act.
A relatively recent regime in which this was an issue was South Africa. Current regimes may include the Middle East, where amputation can be prescribed as a legal punishment for certain crimes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes. And if the doctor takes on the job of assessing how someone is doing, it is part of their job to say when the torture has to stop.
That's the LAW part.
But then you keep throwing in the WORK CULTURE part. If the culture is either to pressure the doctor to say the torture can keep going, or to ignore the doctor when the doctor says the torture has to stop, that is not the law. The doctor has every right, even under the notions of 'just do your job', to insist on his independent assessment and that the assessment is listened to.
The principle of making your conscience subservient to the law has precisely nothing, in my view, to do with making your conscience subservient to a work culture.
The fact that you bring up whistleblowing as an option just shows you're confusing the two things. If the law allows torture, and torture is going on in accordance with the law, what is there to whistleblow? Nothing. There's only something to whistleblow if the law expects an independent medical assessment and torture is going on without the independent medical assessment.
(I'm sure I've had this exact same conversation on the Ship around 3 years ago.)
[ 10. October 2013, 22:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
If you want a concrete, explicit example, try capital punishment in the USA. You can't 'whistleblow' it. It's on the books. Everybody knows about it. I find it morally abhorrent myself, but if I choose to take on a job that involves me in the execution process I can't then take some kind of moral stand on principle against the entire process.
You can, by contrast, whistleblow a particular aspect of the way in which the death penalty is being carried out that is not authorised by the capital punishment laws.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
Again, I don't think it's that simple in the real world. Most people who baulk at an issue in their work are not expecting to do no work at all, but do their job in accordance with standards which they believe are morally right, which are compatible with 99.9% of their job requirements, and which may in fact be legally correct -but that also may depend on the skills of the lawyer and the mood of the judge, should the issue ever make it to courts. And many of these issues, in isolation, do not seem important enough to legally challenge, especially for workers who are not legally trained.
To go back to the accountant example from Dan Ariely's book, an accountant is instructed to rewrite a report that she has already written. Many junior accountants I know take work home with them and do it in their own time, and are not paid overtime. If the accountant recognises that she has not done a good job of the report for a valid reason, she will rewrite the report as instructed. The moral issue comes up when she is asked to write it in a way that she believes deliberately misleads shareholders, so that other people can gain financially from her deception.
Many people have a morality which says "I have an obligation to do my job well, and that includes doing what the boss says." Most of the time this works. When it doesn't, the issues need to be looked at more carefully, not by repeating "You're paid to do your job, so just follow this instruction to the letter, or leave."
Now I can't resist a tangent from William Goldman:
quote:
Fezzik: I just don't think it's right, killing an innocent girl.
Vizzini: Am I going MAD, or did the word "think" escape your lips? You were not hired for your brains, you hippopotamic land mass
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want a concrete, explicit example, try capital punishment in the USA...I find it morally abhorrent myself, but if I choose to take on a job that involves me in the execution process I can't then take some kind of moral stand on principle against the entire process.
Trouble is, jobs and even careers change as businesses or society changes. You take a job focused on chemical safety and the bosses decide to expand into a related field - using chemicals to kill sick or injured animals "humanely," then expands to human executions. That isn't the job you choose, it's the one you are newly finding yourself in.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes. And if the doctor takes on the job of assessing how someone is doing, it is part of their job to say when the torture has to stop.
That's the LAW part.
But then you keep throwing in the WORK CULTURE part. If the culture is either to pressure the doctor to say the torture can keep going, or to ignore the doctor when the doctor says the torture has to stop, that is not the law. The doctor has every right, even under the notions of 'just do your job', to insist on his independent assessment and that the assessment is listened to.
The principle of making your conscience subservient to the law has precisely nothing, in my view, to do with making your conscience subservient to a work culture.
The OP title refers to professional obligations. These obligations encompass both legal requirements, and the need to conform to work culture to achieve the company's aims. I thought we were discussing both, though specific examples may refer to one or the other.
quote:
The fact that you bring up whistleblowing as an option just shows you're confusing the two things. If the law allows torture, and torture is going on in accordance with the law, what is there to whistleblow? Nothing. There's only something to whistleblow if the law expects an independent medical assessment and torture is going on without the independent medical assessment.
I can think of 3 possible reasons to whistleblow.
(1) In a democracy with detailed laws - the whistleblower considers that the law needs to be changed, as most people would be horrified if they knew what it entailed.
(2) In a democracy with vague laws - the whistleblower considers that the law needs to be defined to exclude specific tortures, as most people would be horrified if they knew how the police/military are exploiting loopholes
(3) In any country - if the laws of the current regime are grossly out of step with international standards, and the whistleblower wants international pressure (eg through Amnesty) applied to the regime.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
(1) In a democracy with detailed laws - the whistleblower considers that the law needs to be changed, as most people would be horrified if they knew what it entailed.
No. Suggesting that people actually read the laws that their elected representatives are passing is not 'whistleblowing'.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want a concrete, explicit example, try capital punishment in the USA...I find it morally abhorrent myself, but if I choose to take on a job that involves me in the execution process I can't then take some kind of moral stand on principle against the entire process.
Trouble is, jobs and even careers change as businesses or society changes. You take a job focused on chemical safety and the bosses decide to expand into a related field - using chemicals to kill sick or injured animals "humanely," then expands to human executions. That isn't the job you choose, it's the one you are newly finding yourself in.
Yes. But again, employment is not some kind of continuing right in the sense that the employer is not obliged, having hired you for a given job, to make a promise that the same job will remain available for the rest of your working life.
There are often are rules about notifying you of significant changes to the role, but that's about as far as it goes.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LucyP:
(1) In a democracy with detailed laws - the whistleblower considers that the law needs to be changed, as most people would be horrified if they knew what it entailed.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. Suggesting that people actually read the laws that their elected representatives are passing is not 'whistleblowing'.
Is this an argument about semantics? I think it is true that such activity wouldn't be protected under statutes designed to protect whistleblowers, but it seems to me to come into the category of something that might be a genuine moral issue.
To take the capital punishment argument, I could imagine an instance where a doctor works as a psychiatrist, usually has nothing to do with capital punishment, but then is asked to write a report on a convict which will contribute to the legal process leading towards execution. The doctor does not believe it is write to cooperate. This might be quite unforeseen and occur once in a career. Should the doctor resign as a result of this? Or be berated for not anticipating this and go through with it?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I think it's partly semantics but partly substance. The point is that the laws of the land are a matter of public record. Whistle blowing has to do with revealing secret practices. You simply can't blow the whistle on a law that everybody could know about of they chose to pay attention to publicly available information. You CAN blow the whistle on the particular ways that a law is being applied.
But similarly, I think that the range of responses that are appropriate to back room practices or work culture are completely different to the range of responses that are appropriate to laws and policies that are a matter of public record.
And I also think its fundamentally misconceived to throw examples of individual cases and examples of continuing practices into the pot as if they're all the same thing. They are not.
[ 11. October 2013, 06:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
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.
I agree.. suck it up..
Tangentially there are worse problems. I had a friend who ran a gay bookstore in Boston that was burnt down. They caught and convicted the arsonists who turned out to be firemen who were unhappy that the arson investigation squad budget had gotten cut so they decided to prove it was needed.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Your job is to prevent everybody from burning - not just people who you approve of. You will also be expected to rescue adulterers, murderers and blasphemers from burning buildings, advise them to have a home emergency plan and so on.
Is the stand trying to recruit new firefighters, and presenting the fire brigade as a gay-friendly employer? Again, this is your job, just as you will be expected to work alongside a gay colleague without subjecting him to harassment.
Are you expected to march, wave flags, or take actions that would imply your personal endorsement of homosexuality rather than your employer's corporate support? You should be able to opt out, and assuming you hold the "gay sex is sinful" point of view, you should opt out.
There are certainly combinations of jobs and religious opinion that are just not compatible. Suppose you are a Muslim who refuses to handle pork products on religious grounds. You are not suitable for a job in the (pork-selling) butcher's shop or as short-order cook in a diner. It is not reasonable for you to expect to call someone else over to fry some bacon or sell some pork chops.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I think there's a sliding scale of things that you personally disagree with but can reasonably be asked to up to things that so gravely violate your conscience that it's an infringement of your rights to be forced to engage in them. In the first category, for example, I would place preparing and serving food that you personally wouldn't eat. For example, if a vegetarian waiter doesn't feel able to serve meat to customers, I think they should leave the job and find another one. It's not up the employer to accommodate them IMO.
I would abortion at the other end of the scale (I'm talking about performing an abortion, not just referring a patient for one that's going to be carried out by someone else). For a person who believes abortion to be wrong, to be involved in performing one is a very, very grave violation of their conscience. This actually happened to a friend of mine who used to work as an operating theatre nurse. She had told her employer when she was hired that she did not wish to be involved in performing abortions and they had agreed with her that this was ok. One night she was on call and was asked to come into the hospital for what she understood was a miscarriage. When she got there, she discovered that it was in fact an abortion. She refused to do it and told them they would have to find another nurse, which they eventually did, but they weren't happy about it. She found the whole episode very upsetting. FWIW I think she was absolutely right to stick to her guns. (I'm not 100% sure what the law is in France, but I'm fairly confident that if they had tried to discipline her for refusing to take part in the procedure, she could have sued them, especially since the policy "K does not participate in abortions" had been agreed with the management and spelled out in advance.)
I suppose you could argue that my friend shouldn't have entered the job if she couldn't fulfil all its requirements, including performing abortions, but then society would lose out on the contribution of a person who is an excellent nurse for all procedures except abortions. For this sort of question, I'm not sure it's that clear cut.
For me the most important question is not actually the rights and wrongs of abortion per se. It is the seriousness of the violation of the person's conscience. Which I guess is heading me towards the messy question of how you assess how serious different conscience questions are… ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I think there's a sliding scale of things that you personally disagree with but can reasonably be asked to up to things that so gravely violate your conscience that it's an infringement of your rights to be forced to engage in them.
Agree.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I suppose you could argue that my friend shouldn't have entered the job if she couldn't fulfil all its requirements, including performing abortions, but then society would lose out on the contribution of a person who is an excellent nurse for all procedures except abortions.
You could, but since she was up front about it before being appointed and the deal was accepted I don't think you can blame her.
It wouldn't be fine to accept a job then add following completion of the paperwork that you won't be working Friday afternoons, serving customers in the bar or making up beds for unmarried couples.
On the other hand if the interview panel is daft enough to accept your application is hotelier despite these limitations on your input then that is fair enough. (Totally daft, granted, but legitimately daft.)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am not sure that maternity rights could be justified under that principle. Nor rights for people with disabilities.
I've never heard of a case of an individual being able to negotiate maternity leave (if that's what you're referring to) into an employment contract that didn't have it already. But that's probably because in this country maternity leave is a given.
Disability rights might be a closer example then, since disabilities differ more between individual and individual.
Many jobs don't come with a precisely specified set of duties. Maybe working on a production line: you come on, you do mind-numbing repetitive work for x number of hours, you leave. But in many jobs the employer will not have some precisely specified set of duties, and the contract will have some suitably vague wording at appropriate points.
This means that negotiating where the boundary falls between reasonable behaviour on the part of the employer and the employee's rights to be free of discrimination or so on is often going to happen on a case by case basis. There are general laws against discrimination on the grounds of race, or sex, or sexual orientation, or religion, etc: but you can't specify all the forms discrimination might take in advance.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Dafyd: I'd say that still works with Orfeo's principle, if one makes an exception for things that society agrees on. Maternity, disability etc are different because almost all of us agree we want to live in a society where mothers can be with their children, where people with disabilities are part of society, etc. We are not all concerned with living in a society where my particular moral objection to Xing is supported. In fact, some people strongly want to X.
That's rather saying that people who hold views the majority approve of get accommodated. Minorities have to adapt themselves. Perhaps something of the sort is inevitable in some cases where there's no good solution. But that's not the liberal ideal.
The liberal justification for maternity rights is that not granting maternity rights is unfair discrimination against people who want to have children.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The liberal justification for maternity rights is that not granting maternity rights is unfair discrimination against people who want to have children.
But the only way we can enact that ideal is if a majority think it is a good idea. It doesn't need the majority to actually want to have children, but it does need the majority to think it would be unfair to discriminate or it is unlikely to get on the statute books.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are general laws against discrimination on the grounds of race, or sex, or sexual orientation, or religion, etc: but you can't specify all the forms discrimination might take in advance.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you're trying to go with this. Why are we talking about discrimination?
We started talking about the professional obligations of employees and how they might conflict with morals or beliefs. I can't think of any job where one of the things you have a professional obligation to do is to accept being treated in a discriminatory manner. I can't think of any job where the FUNCTIONS of the job have anything to do with a notion that your employer will treat you differently from other employees with the same function by reason of your race, sex, religion or disability.
[ 11. October 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you're trying to go with this. Why are we talking about discrimination?
We started talking about the professional obligations of employees and how they might conflict with morals or beliefs.
Because "morals or beliefs" seem to be consistently cited as justifications for discrimination. In other words, that someone's professional obligations not to discriminate conflict with a moral code that says you have to discriminate.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Discrimination is a portmanteau word without the attachment of the words unfair or prejudiced. The law sets boundaries re unfairness or prejudice and rightly so. And in the process does something to constrain preferences and choices.
ISTM that we resolve the relationship between professional obligations and beliefs by 'hearing' what each has to say to us and whether they are in conflict.
If they are in conflict for us, we face a further choice.
We may choose what the law or professional code of practice has to say and follow that pro tem, using our membership of a professional body to debate the rights and wrongs of the rules in place. In short we obey and argue.
We may also choose what our beliefs say, act accordingly and take the consequences under law or professional membership. This is simply a different kind of obedience. It may turn us into lawbreakers or outcasts from our profession, but the exercise of conscience can be like that. Best done with our eyes fully open, however.
But we cannot have our cake and eat it, whichever way we go. Personally, when faced with such situations, I have nearly always taken the 'follow the law and argue' line. It's an example of the famous line from 'A Man for All Seasons'. This one.
"A man must serve the Lord wittily, in the tangle of his mind".
There may be limits to that witty following, and those limits may lead you to a gibbet or a cross, but that is the price we may pay for exercise of conscience. As Sir Humphrey observed to Bernard once about conscience. "Conscience? When did you develop this taste for luxury?"
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are general laws against discrimination on the grounds of race, or sex, or sexual orientation, or religion, etc: but you can't specify all the forms discrimination might take in advance.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you're trying to go with this. Why are we talking about discrimination?
We started talking about the professional obligations of employees and how they might conflict with morals or beliefs. I can't think of any job where one of the things you have a professional obligation to do is to accept being treated in a discriminatory manner. I can't think of any job where the FUNCTIONS of the job have anything to do with a notion that your employer will treat you differently from other employees with the same function by reason of your race, sex, religion or disability.
Discrimination doesn't have to take the form of treating people differently. For example - suppose an employer provides only one set of toilets in which one wall is dedicated to urinals. Nobody is being treated differently, but still it's discriminating against women. Equal treatment is discriminatory if that treatment embodies assumptions that all employees are white able-bodied men. It's discriminatory if it assumes that all employees are male breadwinners whose wives are able to look after any children (and therefore doesn't give employees permission to take time off work when children fall ill). It's discriminatory against people with impaired mobility if the only access to important spaces is via steps. And in the same way, it is discriminatory against people with minority religious or ethical codes if it assumes that all employees hold the majority religion or ethical code. For example, if an employer doesn't make allowance for Muslims to pray five times during the day. (Protestants, agnostics, and atheists here need to be aware of the invisibility of privilege.)
[ 12. October 2013, 13:08: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Discrimination doesn't have to take the form of treating people differently...
I've worked in human rights. You don't have to give me a lecture on the difference between formal inequality and the practical discriminatory operation of formal equality.
Which is still completely irrelevant, as far as I can see, as a response. This still has absolutely nothing to do with professional obligations. It is still not the case that putting up with discrimination, in whatever form, is a professional obligation. Nor is INFLICTING discrimination a professional obligation.
In other words I completely understand the points you're making; what I want to know is why you're making them in this thread.
[ 12. October 2013, 13:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which is still completely irrelevant, as far as I can see, as a response. This still has absolutely nothing to do with professional obligations. It is still not the case that putting up with discrimination, in whatever form, is a professional obligation. Nor is INFLICTING discrimination a professional obligation.
As mentioned earlier, "INFLICTING discrimination" is often a function of "beliefs", the second item mentioned in the thread title. Hence the connection to this thread.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Discrimination doesn't have to take the form of treating people differently...
I've worked in human rights. You don't have to give me a lecture on the difference between formal inequality and the practical discriminatory operation of formal equality.
Which is still completely irrelevant, as far as I can see, as a response. This still has absolutely nothing to do with professional obligations. It is still not the case that putting up with discrimination, in whatever form, is a professional obligation. Nor is INFLICTING discrimination a professional obligation.
In other words I completely understand the points you're making; what I want to know is why you're making them in this thread.
Basically, because I think that there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or coming to the right answer for the wrong reason, which wrong reason can then be used to come to the wrong answer.
You said:
quote:
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.
Now that seems to me the wrong reasons, even if the conclusion is right. And this is important because it will justify things we do not want justified.
For example, it seemed to me and still seems to me, that if you take that at face value, it implies that the employer has the right to define the professional obligations of a job as they please. And therefore that it gives the employer the absolute right to decide whether or not their job is discriminatory. Which would be bad.
Say the employer decides that not paying for contraception from corporate health insurance is a professional obligation of the job. Logically, if putting up with discrimination cannot be a professional obligation, and accepting the employer's bar on paying for contraception is a professional obligation, then accepting the employer's bar on paying for contraception cannot be putting up with discrimination.
To put the argument another way: Nobody has a right to a job of their choosing. A person gets paid to do a job that doesn't include health insurance for contraception. While they should have plenty of freedom to choose among the jobs the market offers, they don't then have the right to tailor the job to themselves by asking for health insurance that includes contraception.
The conclusion is absurd; therefore at least one of the premises is faulty.
I don't think it's a sufficient counter-argument to say that health insurance is mandated for all companies by law. That would imply legal positivism: the only reason discrimination is wrong is that there's a law against it. That seems to me to get things backwards. We make a law against something because we think it's wrong.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
if you take that at face value, it IMPLIES that the employer has the right to define the professional obligations of a job as they please...
The conclusion is absurd; therefore at least one of the premises is faulty.
Emphasis added.
So in other words, this is based on taking something I said as if it was intended as a complete, nuanced statement of the situation.
Let me just say that it wasn't. It was a single paragraph saying that you don't get to work around your professional obligations of the job simply by deciding that you, as an individual, have conflicting belief. It was NOT focused on the question of how the content of those professional obligations is determined in the first place.
quote:
I don't think it's a sufficient counter-argument to say that health insurance is mandated for all companies by law. That would imply legal positivism: the only reason discrimination is wrong is that there's a law against it. That seems to me to get things backwards. We make a law against something because we think it's wrong.
And then sometimes we don't make a law against something. Or it took decades, if not centuries, for us to make a law against something. There's an entire country, the United States, that has very very different views about healthcare than most of the rest of the western world. Are the content of morals somehow different in the USA to rest of the world?
I am to a large extent a legal positivist because otherwise we are in the realm of opinion. It's fine for people to have opinions, but how exactly do you go about enforcing the opinion of persons A, H and J against the opinion of persons C, F and L?
To me, this is where the whole 'in my (religious) opinion this is wrong so I'm going to stop doing my job' line of thinking comes unstuck. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion that something is wrong despite the law saying nothing about it, or thinking that the content of the law is wrong, but I'm simply not self-centred enough to think that I can take that opinion and unilaterally act on it without suffering some kind of counter-response from my employer.
Legitimate ways of dealing with my personal belief include discussing it with my employer to see if an accommodation is possible, negotiating variations, advocating changes in practices. If the silence of the law is a problem, campaigning for an addition to the law. If the content of the law is a problem, campaigning for a change to the law.
What is not legitimate in any kind of employer-employee relationship is 'I don't like it so I'm not doing it'. That simply denies the whole notion of relationship.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which is still completely irrelevant, as far as I can see, as a response. This still has absolutely nothing to do with professional obligations. It is still not the case that putting up with discrimination, in whatever form, is a professional obligation. Nor is INFLICTING discrimination a professional obligation.
As mentioned earlier, "INFLICTING discrimination" is often a function of "beliefs", the second item mentioned in the thread title. Hence the connection to this thread.
Croesos, with all due respect, I'd much rather hear what Dafyd thinks about Dafyd's posts than what Croesos thinks about Dafyd's posts. I heard you the first time, but I simply didn't believe that your reasoning was Dafyd's reasoning, and now I'm quite certain that what you've written, twice, wasn't the same reasoning as he was using.
Ta all the same.
[ 12. October 2013, 23:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Are you expected to march, wave flags, or take actions that would imply your personal endorsement of homosexuality rather than your employer's corporate support? You should be able to opt out, and assuming you hold the "gay sex is sinful" point of view, you should opt out.
I had a friend who played Tympani in the Minneapolis Gay Marching Band. At the time the band was small enough so that they needed a bigger percussion section. So they came to an arrangement with the Police marching band, where they would fill in the percussion section for each others parades. All voluntary of course, not everyone is comfortable putting on a police uniform.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
if you take that at face value, it IMPLIES that the employer has the right to define the professional obligations of a job as they please...
The conclusion is absurd; therefore at least one of the premises is faulty.
Emphasis added.
So in other words, this is based on taking something I said as if it was intended as a complete, nuanced statement of the situation.
Let me just say that it wasn't. It was a single paragraph saying that you don't get to work around your professional obligations of the job simply by deciding that you, as an individual, have conflicting belief. It was NOT focused on the question of how the content of those professional obligations is determined in the first place.
Fair enough.
quote:
quote:
That would imply legal positivism: the only reason discrimination is wrong is that there's a law against it. That seems to me to get things backwards. We make a law against something because we think it's wrong.
And then sometimes we don't make a law against something. Or it took decades, if not centuries, for us to make a law against something. There's an entire country, the United States, that has very very different views about healthcare than most of the rest of the western world. Are the content of morals somehow different in the USA to rest of the world?
I should have checked wikipedia before I typed. I see I was slightly misusing the phrase legal positivism.
quote:
I am to a large extent a legal positivist because otherwise we are in the realm of opinion. It's fine for people to have opinions, but how exactly do you go about enforcing the opinion of persons A, H and J against the opinion of persons C, F and L?
My reaction here is that no set of laws can possibly determine their application to all possible eventualities. At some point you need to bring in a human interpreter who interprets according to whatever principle of jurisprudence he or she thinks ought to be used.
As such an employee cannot necessarily know with certainty in all cases whether the law will vindicate his or her stand or rule against it until he or she tries to make a case.
quote:
To me, this is where the whole 'in my (religious) opinion this is wrong so I'm going to stop doing my job' line of thinking comes unstuck. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion that something is wrong despite the law saying nothing about it, or thinking that the content of the law is wrong, but I'm simply not self-centred enough to think that I can take that opinion and unilaterally act on it without suffering some kind of counter-response from my employer.
I think this conflates two questions: the prudential question of what my employer is going to do about things, and the moral question of how my employer ought to react. For example, Chelsea Manning should have expected the US government to throw the book at her when she leaked government secrets. That doesn't mean that the US government was right to throw the book at her.
As a parallel case, which although not about employee-employer relations is I think governed by the same general principles: over the past twenty years, various religious and secular protestors have broken into military bases to sabotage military equipment. They should certainly have expected the government to try to prosecute. Some of them were vindicated completely by the courts; others have been given minimal sentences. They defended their activities on the grounds that they had a right to sabotage material that was intended for purposes illegal under international law. I certainly don't see that my admiration for their activities should be affected by their belief that there was a legal defence of their actions, nor by whether or not their defence succeeded.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0