Introduction: Thank you to everyone who shared their thoughts on our newest moral dilemma. After outlining the original dilemma and then adding a wrinkle to it later, we are now ready for an analysis of the dilemma from an expert in moral theology and ethics.

The moral dilemma of physicist Kiersten vis-à-vis the Firefly offensive weapons project at her defense contractor job drew 80 responses during this busy summer month—and they’re good ones.

One independent thinker, an Air Force retiree, rightly raised the essential preliminary question. Should someone with moral qualms about the military or its weaponry accept a job in the munitions field in the first place? I once counseled a young Ph.D. graduate who was about to embark on a career in the C.I.A. The person’s moral qualm: “What if they ask me to carry a false passport into a country? Is that justified lying?” While I appreciated the concern, I raised the more fundamental question, “Are you prepared to spend your life working for the American spy agency, doing overt and covert operations to secure intelligence?” “Spying,” almost by definition, means secrecy, deception, bribery, stoolies, and the like. If one is willing to cross this major Rubicon, then the question of a false passport would seem insignificant, “fair game” or “par for the course.” So, I think Ian (as a chemist) and Kiersten (as a physicist) probably should have asked this kind of fundamental moral question when they first contemplated careers in companies creating new, cutting-edge military weaponry.

Lesser Evil

Still, we live in an imperfect world. Many jobs and careers bring us close to issues, procedures, and choices that are morally dusty grey, not neatly black & white. So the Catholic, Christian, and other ethical traditions try to help us walk-the-tightrope, sometimes “split hairs,” but hopefully in a genuine quest for the greater good or lesser evil in an imperfect situation. Stock brokers, police officers, lawyers, soldiers, factory-owners, chemists of all kinds, healthcare professionals, almost all of us face moral conflicts in our careers and jobs.

Thus an “absolute pacifist,” someone opposed to all violence and use of military force, ought not to venture into the defense industry or military industrial complex at all. But Kiersten and Ian do not seem to be of that stripe. Like most “just war” advocates, their primary posture would be one of diplomacy and peacemaking. But they are open to the nation’s use of force, even lethal force, in a defensive mode. Since the writings of St. Augustine in the 400s Christians have tried to delineate when and how much force is apropos vs. what level of violence would be inappropriate, dehumanizing, and immoral.

Defense

Therefore, one might initially go into the weapons industry with this mindset. But as Kiersten has soon learned, the line between defensive and offensive, between acceptable and questionable too soon can be crossed, especially in the cutting-edge field of creating newer, better, and likely more lethal weapons systems.

But that is not the question at hand. Kiersten has done commendable defense-oriented work for her employer. Her husband Ian is now battling leukemia and facing medical disability issues. And they have a child for whom they are responsible. Can she morally justify staying with the Firefly project, now even accept directorship of the program, knowing that it is in the field of first-strike, offensive, non-tactical weapons systems. The money is good. Her company appreciates her work and anticipates her participation and promotion. She needs the job. She especially needs the health benefits for her husband and child. Transferring insurance now, given Ian’s now-preexisting condition, would be a rather “iffy’ healthcare and financial project.

So, should she just bite the moral bullet, accept the promotion, and stay-the-course, at least until Ian is healthier, Brenna is older, etc.? It truly is a moral dilemma, the proverbial “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” In the Wrinkle only six respondents (16%) agree with this option—forge ahead with the promotion on her own initiative for the sake of Ian and Brenna—with an additional three folks (8%) allowing for this option while floating her resume seeking to get out as soon as possible.

Worse or Better

The majority of commentators (50%) say she should discuss the dilemma with Ian. Bravo! I agree. They’re in this marriage, this parenting situation, the defense industry, and even Ian’s leukemia together. It’s part of the covenant of marriage to face the “for worse” as well as the “for better” together. None of the options is perfect. Welcome to life! Of the imperfect options, which one is best for all concerned (including Kiersten’s moral conscience)?

Catholic morality has a fairly in-depth tradition called “the principle of cooperation,” which deals with people facing complicity-with-evil questions. As a rule of thumb, the farther one is from doing the immoral deed (i.e., action) or having control over whether the immoral deed will be done (i.e., intention) the cleaner or more justified one is. The closer one is to doing the foul deed and certainly to intending or deciding to do the deed in the first place, the more accountable (i.e. guilty) one is.

Interestingly and helpfully for Kiersten, extenuating circumstances (i.e., a sick husband, health insurance risks, parenting obligations) allow one to flirt closer to the evil with less moral guilt or liability.

In The End

So, bottom line moral analysis, I think:

1) Kiersten could probably stay in her present position for the short run, while she and Ian do some mutual moral discernment, possibly including some resume-floating and alternate job-searching.

2) It would be very questionable for her to take over directorship of the “Firefly” project with a clear conscience.

3) Her employers ought to appreciate the integrity of her conscience and, if she is such a valued physicist and employee, find her alternate work within the company’s less controversial military and defense projects.

4) There would be room for Kiersten and Ian, in their mutual moral discernment, to candidly weigh whether the Firefly project indeed fits within the boundaries of a justified defensive weapons system or whether her initial qualms are well founded.

In the end, I think they would be morally justified making a mutual decision pro or con and then opting to “live with it.” The moral tradition allows us to choose in a dilemma and to forge ahead in good conscience. If right, congratulations, all should turn out well. If wrong, we were sincerely mistaken and that is covered by the “good-intention” loophole. Prayerful good wishes to Kiersten, Ian, and Brenna!

Need to get up to speed with the first part of the dilemma or “The Wrinkle?” Read the original dilemma and then read the wrinkle and vote/comment on one or both before reading our moral theologian’s analysis.