In defense of good work: jobs, violence, and the ethical dimension.

• Date: 22 September 2003
• Author: Arenas, Alberto
• Published date: 22 September 2003
• Author: Arenas, Alberto

Without work, all life goes rotten, but when work is soulless, life stifles and dies.--Albert Camus

ON JANUARY 29, 2002, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH DELIVERED STATE OF THE Union Address to Congress. One of his key messages was the importance of employment creation: "When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs" (Bush, 2002). Throughout his address, he used the concept of a "good job" without ever defining it. Given his actions as president, it appears that a "good job" is simply a synonym for a "job." Such an interpretation would be consistent with macroeconomic theory, which considers the creation of new employment, any employment, to be a healthy economic sign. More jobs mean less unemployment, which in turn assumes that there will be a more dignified living for a larger percentage of the population. As long as jobs are created, regardless of the product or service delivered, or the consequences to individuals, communities, or ecosystems, the economy and the society as a whole are viewed as progressing.

In recent decades, many authors have sought to reclaim the nobility of work and its sense of social responsibility (e. g., Terkel, 1975; Roszak, 1979; Schumacher, 1979; Bellah et al., 1985; Martin, 2000; Gardner et al., 2001). They differ in their analyses of the roles of the economic system, new forms of technology, and a consumerist society in degrading work to a profiteering and numbing enterprise, but they all agree that work devoid of an enlarged sense of ethics is a mediocre activity at best.

This article continues this critical view by supporting the concept of quality of work, as opposed to quantity in the abstract. Although I accept the importance of full employment, it must be analyzed hand in hand with the type of work that is done. Is it work that ennobles the individual, seeks to improve community living, and protects the integrity of rivers, mountains, and deserts? Or is it work that deadens the soul, destroys community life, and poisons the environment?

This article will not focus on the more conventional "professional ethics," a series of principles of conduct that all members of a profession should abide by (e.g., be competent, display prudence, avoid carelessness, protect the welfare of clients). Although these principles are commendable, work is not just about following the highest standards of one's profession, or even about a living wage and better working conditions. Work is also about self-discovery and discovery of the universe. Work, when it is dignified and interesting, is about losing oneself in the task at hand and realizing that people's identity exists within the chore itself and beyond it in a wider world. Good work is ultimately a morally infused endeavor directed toward the social good.

This article encompasses three sections: the first explores the notion that professional ethics are important, but are insufficient for bringing forth the wider "reverence for life" necessary for dealing with the current social and environmental malaise (Schweitzer, 1955). The second section critiques the belief that in the name of self-interest, technique, or efficiency, any production process or its end result is acceptable. The third section focuses on the difficult choices poor people face when deciding between self-preservation and self-actualization.

Professional Competence Versus Ethical Mysticism

An acquaintance of mine, whom I will call John, works for Lockheed Martin, the world's largest military contractor. A highly competent aerospace engineer, he graduated from a prestigious university. He designs, develops, and tests components for various military and civilian products. As an African American from a working-class background, he is proud to be the first in his family to graduate from college. Thanks to his salary, he helps to support his parents and he bought a large, comfortable house in the suburbs. When I asked him why he worked for Lockheed Martin, he talked about the generous salary and benefits, relative job security, pleasant working conditions, and his creativity being constantly challenged in developing the most efficient, flexible, and cost-effective parts possible. He also mentioned the importance of "helping to defend the country," but it seemed he had not given much thought to the fact that his labor was used to manufacture Lockheed Martin's lethal F-16 jetfighters, Trident nuclear ballistic missiles, and laser weapons systems, which are employed to kill people around the world. It appeared this moral and ethical predicament did not trouble him much.

Lockheed Martin, the world's largest arms-exporting company, is a key component of a well-oiled war machine. The world arms trade, which in the year 2000 amounted to almost $800 billion (SIPRI, 2001), not including the increase after the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, results in the death of a mostly civilian population. "The percentage of civilians killed and wounded as a result of hostilities has risen from 5 percent of all casualties at the turn of the last century [the 20th century], to 65 percent during World War II, to 90 percent in more recent conflicts" (Save the Children, 2002: 2-3). The global weapons trade also fuels insecurity through spirals of reciprocal destruction. It breeds wars and prevents the peaceful resolution of conflicts, devastates the landscape and prolongs suffering through physical and psychological damage inflicted on people, facilitates military rule and the suppression of human rights, and diverts financial resources from urgent needs such as adequate housing, health care, and education. Moreover, the environment is greatly degraded, increasing the pain of poor communities that rely on the environment for subsistence. Guaranteeing security as the key reason for escalating military spending leads to a cruel irony: the more governments spend on weapons to promote peace, the less secure people are. (1)

It is unclear whether these moral reasons will eventually dissuade John from working at Lockheed Martin. He probably sees his labor as distant and unrelated to the carnage brought about by weapons he helps to create. Possibly, too, he believes the U.S. needs to protect its borders, citizens, and way of life by massively investing in weaponry. Even if he harbored ethical misgivings and wished to transfer to a company that produced only nonmilitary products, he would have to undergo retraining given his highly specialized skills and there would be no guarantee that he could find a job with the generous salary and benefits of his current position. John does not engage in any illegal or even, from the standpoint of conventional professional ethics, immoral behavior (see, for instance, Flores, 1988). He abides by the basic standards of his profession in that he displays integrity (addresses issues related to product safety and performance), responsibility (engages in safe design and high engineering standards), and respect (values the input of clients, co-workers, and others). In addition, he is a good son who supports his parents financially and, as the first in his family to graduate from college, serves as a role model to his relatives.

How, then, must we make sense of this quandary? There are four main sources of motivation for work: (1) survival: basic material needs; (2) personal compensation: money, power, and prestige; (3) craft: technical and creative excellence; and (4) moral concern: caring about and showing respect for communities and the environment (Martin, 2000). The survival motivation for work stands high for all groups of people, but especially for the world's poor who do not have a welfare net to meet their basic needs. Second, a modicum of interest with personal compensation is generally harmless and it is now a truism that too great a concern with this motivation is a mediocre substitute for meaningful work. Third is the definite pride and satisfaction people feel with work done well. Ideally, it should be an integral and inseparable part of work. It becomes problematic when zeal with technique is at the expense of moral concerns, leading to widespread social and environmental damage, as in the case of Lockheed Martin, or, as we will see, at Ford Motor Company. Fourth, morality encompasses elements that John already exhibits (e.g., helping out his parents), but it also includes the teleological consequences of the products he helps to make. Douglas Heath (1991) has argued that the inability to visualize how an individual's work affects human beings other than his or her inner circle of family and friends is called "self-centeredness." The opposite of self-centeredness is "other-centeredness," which to Heath is one of the...