Welcome to the new subscribers.
My studies in Applied Ethics are getting complicated. We started Axiology, which is just a fancy word for the study of value. In axiology, we ask what is value. How are things valuable differently? What makes them valuable?
Needless to say, today’s seminar did not end in the lecture hall. We continued for 2-hours in the parking lot. The burning issue started when I proposed what I regarded as a simple argument, which my professor and a fellow student found appalling and came guns blazing. For context, the argument was about how the moral status of a human being changes depending on what they are involved with.
I have to start with some technicalities: A moral agent is a being that can freely make choices, act on them and defend them using logical reasons, such that they would require another person to do the same under the same circumstances. For instance, if we say it is wrong to lie because it is wrong to mislead other people, then we must not only forgo all opportunities to lie, but we must demand of other people to do the same.
I take it many people would agree with the above. After all, this is what we teach our children – to never lie. Now, suppose that we are in Rwanda in 1994 during the Genocide. Suppose, further, that you are a Tutsi member – part of the tribe that was killed en-mass by the Hutus. Suppose further that your child is regarded as Hutu (for reasons we will ignore in this thought experiment) and that you are taking refuge at your child’s home. Soldiers storm the house and you run into hiding. The soldiers see that your child is Hutu and is therefore spared. However, they ask if she is hiding any Tutsis in the house. Is your child, as you raised them, obliged to tell the truth knowing that the soldiers would kill you if they found you?
(I only use the example of the Rwanda genocide for awareness purposes. It has been 20 years since the genocide and Rwanda is a completely different country from what it was then and widely regarded as one of the cleanest and well-run countries in Africa. I hope to visit the country soon)
Anyway. This example reveals that we often hold principles without thinking them through. For instance, the principle that it is wrong to lie is only uncontroversial under certain circumstances. But as you have seen, it quickly becomes debatable and maybe even wrong in different circumstances. Philosophers are interested in principles that remain true and defensible – as we say – in all possible worlds.
With this background, let’s dive into today’s newsletter.
—
QUESTION: Are employees a means to the company’s ends (even though we openly deny it and pretend it is not the case with employee wellness programs etc)? When working for a company, are just tools at the end of the day?
This was the subject of a 2-hour long debate in the parking lot with a classmate. I will spare you the fireworks and share only the claims. Then I will share my opinion.
THE CLAIM:
When you accept employment, you agree to become an instrument in the advancement of the company’s ends in exchange for money. If the company fulfils its obligation of paying you a salary then you must fulfil your obligation to the company, at least to the point that even if you prefer not to be at work, you must nevertheless go to work. And if you cannot be at work, you must not only report but prove that you were unable to go to work, say, with a doctor’s note.
If you accept this claim you are accepting (at least) that the company can legitimately override your personal preferences. In addition, your obligation to the company means there are things for which you will accept punishment if not done. It follows that your moral status as an employee is different from a non-employee and the difference is that you are now a means to the company’s ends. In other words, you are a tool.
Another way of looking at this claim is to say companies do not hire people they hire the skills that people possess. It just happens that those skills come with people. The person, however, despite having the skill, might not be able to discharge it (for whatever reason, be it due to health or willingness). Hence, wherever possible, companies prefer machines over people because machines do not have the potential burden except breaking down, which is far more predictable and manageable.
This claim holds the view that employees are a means to a company’s ends. Wellness programs, beautiful buildings, professional conduct, dress code, titles, team building sessions – all of them are a means to improve employee productivity. They are just gimmicks to make people feel good; the real objective is to make them produce more work.
THE COUNTER:
You are looking at an image of Phineas Gage. He worked for a railroad company as a construction foreman in the mid-1800s. He was loved by his colleagues and was often lauded as a gentleman, friendly and helpful. One afternoon they were tasked with blasting rocks. At the time, one had to drill a small hole into the rock, put gunpowder in the hole, stomp it with a rod, add a detonator cord, and then stand a few hundred metres away from the rock and blast. On this fateful afternoon, however, Gate routinely stomped the gunpower and caused a spark, which exploded sending the rod through his head.
He lay on the floor squealing and squirming. His colleagues, shocked, gathered around him and were convinced that he would die. So they waited. But he did not die. They carried him to the nearest clinic where doctors were just as shocked and attended to him, first pulling out the rod from his head and then calling other doctors to see a miracle – a man with a pole in his head but still alive.
After a few months, Gage recovered and was sent home. Everybody was not only happy but surprised that he made a full recovery. When sitting with him, however, he would suddenly snap and want to harm or even kill whoever he was sitting with. Then suddenly he was fine again, warm, fuzzy and talkative. Gage’s injury ushered in neuroscience as we know it today. It was established that he damaged his pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain we use for high-order reasoning. He was healthy but crucially, he was no longer able to stop himself from causing harm. Therefore, he was no longer a moral agent because he could not exercise choice.
This story is important to keep in mind as we unpack this counter claim.
The counterargument is that moral agency is a prerequisite for entering into an employment agreement. If one is to become duty-bound to a company, it is only because they are moral agents otherwise they would not be able to fulfil their duties. For instance, Phineas Gage was more than capable of working before his injury. However, post-injury (where his brain was damaged) he was no longer capable of upholding any obligation, and could no longer be an employee of any company. To say someone is a means to an end is to strip them of moral agency, particularly their ability to make choices, which is in itself immoral.
Therefore, employees are always moral agents with full moral status + additional obligations to the company. In other words, the company must first recognise that employees are moral agents before pursuing its functional/operational demands; this means a company cannot demand an employee to do something immoral even if the immoral act would serve the company’s ends. An employee ought not to steal, for instance, even if it would benefit the company.
MY OPINION
What’s your take? Are you in defence of the claim or the counterclaim? Although I have not tested this, I think most people will argue for the latter. Employees never lose their moral status. If anything, moral agency is the foundation of all agreements as is shown through Phineas Gage’s tragic story.
Okay. I will argue for the former – that moral agents give up some of their agency when they enter an employment agreement. Furthermore, I will show that this happens more commonly than we think. I will not argue that employees do not have moral agency at all. Rather, they have a different moral status which excempts them from being held accountable for certain actions of the company. This is only possible because their moral responsibility is removed from them and placed elsewhere.
Here goes: Suppose a war breaks out with a neighbouring country. In defence of the country, it is decreed that all able-bodied young men of 18 years + become soldiers. They duly receive training and go to the battlefield. These young men would now be obliged to kill an enemy soldier as part of the act of war. They will be obliged, at the same time, not to kill civilians. If, in the act of war, they choose not to kill as a soldier or they kill a civilian they would have contravened their duty and have done something immoral. In other words, by becoming a soldier, a person acquires a different moral status where they are obliged to fulfil the ends of a moral authority.
The crucial parts are that a) There is a moral authority; b) there is an agent; c) the agent is obliged to the moral authority thereby acting on behalf of the moral authority.
a) In a company, the moral authority is the boss. If we follow the chain of command, the moral authority of the company is the board at least to the extent that if the company is said to have done something immoral, it is the board and its executives that are held accountable not the employees (the agent). b) There are obviously agents in the company. Most relevant to this topic are the employees. c) the agents are obliged to the company and act on its behalf, sometimes even wearing its uniform and required to follow a code of conduct of some sort.
I am showing that there is no material difference between a soldier and an employee. Yes, what they do is different. However, the principles under which they act are the same. Soldiers are to the army, what employees are to the company. If you accept this proposition, then you must also accept the following implications. If the employee chooses not to act so as to advance the ends of the company, the company is obliged to punish or dismiss them. In other words, there are certain freedoms that the employee (same as a soldier) that they give up. For the employee, these freedoms include the use of time, the restriction of trade and the dispensation of one’s skills in aid of the company. But only that, accepting that the company may train the employee in other skills and demand for their discharge.
The employee is in essence an agent of the company. Crucially, I am not saying they are a moral agent. I accept that they do not lose their moral agency generally speaking (to the point of the counterclaim) to the extent that the employee can always resign. However, while the employment is in effect, they are an agent of the company, however, the morality is transferred to the company (through its chain of command). If the employee is injured on duty, the company is responsible for them. Likewise, if the employee insults a customer, let’s say, then the company is liable. Yes, the company may (internally) discipline the staff members or even dismiss them. However, that is secondary to the initial responsibility placed squarely on the company.
All of the above, as I have said, is possible because in an employer-employee relationship: the moral agency (in terms of acts pertaining to the company’s ends) is held by the company and the agent only acts in service of it. This is different from director members (or board members) who are fiduciaries and are therefore moral representatives of the company – they do not enjoy the moral exemption that employees enjoy.
CONCLUSION
Today’s newsletter is slightly technical; perhaps more than I wanted it to be. Nevertheless, the point is that employees are means to a company’s ends; they are agents when acting on behalf of the company but not full moral agents because some of their freedoms are given to the company. This makes the company the principal moral agent.
To be honest, I would rather not hold this conclusion because it opens up a can of worms. However, part of our training as philosophers is to be able to strengthen an opposing case and make it impossible to crack. And then try to take it apart. Crucially, this must all be done with reason and logic alone.
The problem with this view is that (now I am adding one more technical term – utilitarianism). A Utilitarian is one who holds that moral agents must act so as to maximise the greatest good for the greatest number. If the CEO of the company is a utilitarian, which many are, then they are obliged to maximise the output of their employees. At best this is done through employee development and wellness programs. At worst this is done by pushing employees to breaking point – by paying them less and working them more. Crucially, if an employee no longer performs, a utilitarian will have no problems with replacing them so long as that will not cause greater harm than the good that will come from replacing them.
The greatest problem is that we become mere tools in the great economic machine. Most people feel this way, hence they seek fulfilment elsewhere – be it through hobbies or starting other businesses. Most people cannot wait for the weekend and take a break from beings cogs in a machine. In claim that this feeling is not out of place because this is exactly what they are. I do not claim that this is right – no – I claim that this is the status quo.
What then is to be done?
Until next week.
Vusi Sindane
