When considering where I can ethically work, I am guided by the follwoing principle discussed in the 5.2 reading : “How close is my work to those actions I believe are wrong?” This question helps me navigate the complexities of working for organizations whose actions or missions may raise ethical concerns. Additionally, the 5.2 reading’s discussion of “ethically dubious missions and connections” and “exploitation of consumers” resonates with me as key factors to form my evaluation of a company’s ethical practices.
In the case of Facebook, I do not believe it is a company I could ethically work for, primarily due to its vast reach and influence over both young and old populations. According to reports and analyses, Facebook has been implicated in troubling practices such as surveillance which has led to the arrest of protestors and civilians in various countries. For example, in the Philippines, Facebook had a large role in censoring and subverting government critic Maria Ressa who was arrested for her critical reporting work on the Duterte administration. This aligns with the reading’s discussion of exploitation and ethically dubious connections, where companies engage in harmful or morally questionable activities on a large scale. While some might justify working for Facebook by emphasizing the potential to enact change from within, I feel that my ambitions and skills would be better applied in a different organization, one more aligned with my values. As the 5.1 reading outlines, there are several questions to ask about the work such as “is it meaningful” which are rendered obsolete by immoral company values. To give a personal example, I was once interviewing with a company which excited me and stimulated me intellectually. However, upon asking and learning that the company worked with the U.S. military, this information clashed with my moral values to the extent that I no longer felt dedicateed to their progress, and I felt no other option but to decline the position.
At the same time, I recognize the privilege inherent in being able to choose not to work for certain organizations. As the 5.1 reading points out, working in an ethically compromised space is not always black and white, and sometimes it is necessary to make compromises for survival or to meet personal or familial needs. For instance, in the the reading discusses how economic realities, such as providing for loved ones or building a career foundation, can justify working for an organization which engages in questionable practices. This is particularly relevant in our society, where wealth inequality and systemic barriers often leave people with limited choices. For many, refusing a lucrative opportunity at Facebook and similar corporations is not a feasible option. As the 5.2 reading emphasizes, the interconnectedness of our economy makes it nearly impossible to avoid some level of complicity with unethical practices. Judging individuals who work for these organizations without considering their circumstances feels unfair, as survival often requires operating within the constraints of a capitalist society.
As the 5.1 reading asserts, each person must identify and prioritize which values are most important to them at each potential workplace. While I hold my personal belief that we should strive to minimize complicity with harmful practices, I believe it is vital to approach this issue with nuance and empathy. I reserve criticism for those who refuse to acknowledge the ethical issues surrounding their workplace, as the reading’s emphasis on honesty aligns with my belief that transparency and self-awareness are essential. Ultimately, while I choose not to work for Facebook, I respect that others may make different choices based on their circumstances and the unique challenges they face.
