By FASPE Chair David Goldman
Complicity: per one definition, “association or participation…in a wrongful act.” Another, “the state of being involved with others in…wrongdoing.”
Association? Participation? Involved with? Wrongdoing? What do any of these mean?
In a world in which many of us see rampant, contagious and dangerous wrongdoing, we must ask about our own complicity in what we see. These questions demand answers today!
Much has been written about complicity. I want here to touch on complicity from the point of view of the professional. This is the continuation of a conversation, not the beginning or the end, one based on an important starting point, a FASPE theme: the ethical professional must always engage in self-examination, including the question of one’s complicity.
---------------
What is wrongdoing?
- Isn’t wrongdoing anything that the person asking the question about complicity thinks is wrong? Or put differently, if one is concerned about whether he or she might be complicit in something, it would suggest that the decision about whether that something is wrongdoing has already been asked and answered, at least for that individual.
- But, of course, that is not enough; it covers only limited situations. The ethical professional must be self-aware and interrogate the thing. Is it wrong? Constant self-examination is vital.
Part of FASPE’s approach is to utilize a history in which there can be no doubt about the thing; no one will argue that the policies of National Socialism were anything but wrong, undebatable wrongdoing. So, we can avoid the question in order to examine the why, i.e., why we become complicit. But, the real world is more complicated. The real world is gray.
3. For these purposes, I propose that we not seek to create a blanket definition of what is a wrong; that would not be possible. Instead:
- the ethical professional must constantly ask: is the thing that I am doing, the thing that I am engaged with, the thing I might participate in, a wrong, and
- the ethical professionals must accept that their particular expertise, as a doctor or lawyer or other professional, means that they have the unique capability to define a wrong within their area of expertise.
The wrong may take many forms—including, acts against the profession as a whole, acts against the people whom the profession is intended to serve, attempts to create unfair advantage for some within the profession, etc. The wrongs need not be unlawful in order to be wrong within the construct of the ethical professional!
A lawyer in a law firm can best answer whether an executive order that bans a law firm from the right to practice in federal agencies is wrong.
A doctor can best answer whether disseminating misinformation about medical treatments is wrong.
A journalist can best address whether denying journalistic access to government leaders as a result of perceived unfavorable coverage is wrong.
Clergy may be well positioned to consider whether the use of starvation as a tool of war is morally wrong.
---------------
The more complicated question is what constitutes participating in wrongdoing?
- I propose that the answer should take into account where one stands on the continuum of expertise in respect of the particular wrongdoing. Because we are dealing with professionals, we start with expertise!
- The first question: is doing nothing an option? The answer is clear: if the professional has particular knowledge, experience, and/or expertise in relation to wrongdoing, doing nothing is complicity.
- Accepting that doing nothing constitutes complicity, what must I do (or not do) in order to avoid being complicit?
- How much potential power do I have with respect to the wrongdoing? What I must do (or not do) in relation to the wrongdoing must be proportionate to the potential influence I have. Obviously, the more potential, the greater the responsibility, the greater the risk of complicity.
- Possible actions can take all forms—from seeking collective action among professionals and professional organizations to individual advocacy, from public defiance to speaking or writing in one’s smaller community, from publicly quitting one’s job to quietly seeking to make change from within, from interceding with one’s patients, clients, and customers to seeking harm mitigation where possible.
The ethical professional must, in any case, self-examine. What is possible? How and where can I have the most impact? Accepting that doing nothing is not an option, what is possible, what is the most effective? Noting that the goal is not martyrdom or self-sacrifice; the goal is realistic, effective action in the real world. Doing nothing is not an ethical action.
The questions of complicity and degree of complexity must be examined. They must be examined in light of expertise, proximity and the potential for impact—not as an excuse to do nothing, but in terms of what I must do (or not do).
--------------------
We must remember: complicity is not a political question.
This is not partisan politics. There is nothing inherently incongruous between partisan politics and professional ethics. Partisanship should allow for disagreement without assuming ethical implications. On the other hand, if the professional sees wrongdoing in a partisan position, he or she becomes complicit in that wrongdoing by not acting. And, if these partisan politics constitute an attack on the profession itself, or on professionals by virtue of their profession, the line of wrongdoing has been passed.
—-------------
It is not enough to engage in handwringing. Where we have the capacity to influence, it is morally unacceptable and professionally unethical to engage in self-satisfactory victimhood, merely regretting our plight.
Professionals, you are not the victims; you are the elite; you have power; you are complicit if you do not recognize and acknowledge your responsibility and capacity for influence. In small ways and large. Creatively, actively, and purposefully. If you are one who judges yourself by what your mother or priest may think, or by what the wrongdoing could look like tomorrow or in five years in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, then think about your mother or your priest or that newspaper article when you fear or ignore, when you want to remain silent or not act when your voice or your action could have even a small impact. Let the symbolic knowledge of their judgment spur you to do what is ethical.
Wrongdoing comes in all stripes and packages. As does complicity. Mirrors are not just for the vain; they are also for ethical self-examination.
"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.
Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.