“If I don’t sell it, the shop next door will.” Does that excuse selling a remedy I think is useless?
Its coordinates: 3.3.3 Business and Economic Ethics · 3.3.4 Ethics of Technology and AI
At our pharmacy counter in Ahmedabad we sell a herbal "immunity tonic" that I am fairly sure does nothing. It's legal, cheap and harmless as far as I know. Customers ask for it by name. When I told my father I didn't want to stock it, he said: if we don't sell it, the shop across the lane will, and the customer loses nothing except our goodwill.
That argument has a famous version. Bernard Williams imagined a chemist, George, who is offered a job in a laboratory researching chemical and biological weapons. If George refuses, the job goes to someone who will pursue the research more zealously. Williams used the case to argue that an ethics which only counts outcomes leaves out integrity, the fact that some things are mine to do or not do.
The Jain teaching I grew up with makes a similar point in its own way. Harm can be done by you, caused by you through others, or approved by you, and all three count.
My case is much smaller than George's. But:
- Does "someone else will do it anyway" ever excuse anything?
- Is a useless but harmless product even a harm? Maybe the harm is to the customer who takes the tonic instead of seeing a doctor.
- Or is my discomfort just pride, wanting clean hands more than I want to help anyone?