Superheroes & Villains: Diary of a Mad Ethics Professor
by Christopher Robichaud on December 6, 2007 in Diary of a Mad Ethics Professor
Dear Professor:
Am I morally bound to tell the complete truth on a federal job application even if I know that doing so will probably disqualify me for consideration? I believe I would provide a great social benefit for years to come were I to get this job, and it’s a job I desire very much. (Just to be clear, my past transgression is something I consider very minor—i.e., it’s not that I killed someone or anything like that—but it’s nevertheless something that couldn’t be explained away for this particular job.)
Sincerely,
Distraught Dissembler
Dear Distraught Dissembler,
Since you’re explicitly concerned with the moral dimension of this issue—as you put it, whether you’re morally bound to be entirely truthful on a federal job application—I’m just going to mention in passing that there’s a legal dimension to this issue worth keeping in mind; specifically, I think it’s illegal, at least in some cases, to lie on such applications. That might have moral bearing on your deliberation, if you think that something’s being illegal is a prima facie moral reason for not doing it. I’ve mentioned in previous installments that I find that view to be implausible. Nevertheless, if in fact such lying is illegal, then that is certainly a prudential reason for not doing it.
Turning to the moral dimension of your question, if you’re a strict Kantian, then it’s impermissible to lie on the application. Kant maintained that it’s wrong to lie no matter what, as doing so violates the categorical imperative to always treat persons as ends in themselves and not merely as means. On the other hand, if you’re a diehard consequentialist, then the answer to your question will depend entirely on how much overall social benefit your occupation of this position will bring about. The problem is, few of us are strict Kantians or diehard consequentialists. So few of us think that it’s never permissible to lie or that the moral permissibility of lying is determined entirely by how much good it brings about.
But where does that leave us? It leaves us needing to look very carefully at the details of the cases we face where lying is a desirable option, and then weighing various normative principles in light of those details. Given that I don’t know the specifics of your case, it’s not possible for me to say something more substantial about it; however, I will offer something that I think you should keep in mind when making your decision.
You should ask yourself why the application is asking what it’s asking: what might the justification be for wanting applicants to be truthful in this matter. For instance, suppose you’re applying to work for the Justice Department, specifically, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The application asks if you’ve ever taken illegal drugs. You smoked half a joint of marijuana once when you were fifteen. This is arguably a minor transgression. So there’s the temptation here to lie. But why might the DEA want you to tell the truth? Is it reasonable for them to want to know whether potential agents have chosen—at any point in their lives—to partake in illegal substances? If it does seem reasonable, that is, if there seems to be good reason for the person/agency in question to want the truth in this matter, then that counts against the permissibility of you lying about it.
Yours,
Professor Robichaud
Comments
Got something to say?
