Let’s imagine a kind of philosophical court made up of four lawyers, each defending a different moral perspective. Before considering their arguments, let’s look at the case at hand:
A construction worker agreed to install porcelain tile in a client’s home. A month later, before starting the job, he received an offer for a formal position with an employment contract. Since this new opportunity offered greater stability and better prospects for his life and his family, he told the client that he could no longer do the work. As a result, the client will have to find another professional to complete the job.
The first lawyer bases his argument on Kant’s ethics of duty. From this perspective, a promise creates a moral obligation that must be honored regardless of any advantages that may arise later. If people abandoned their commitments whenever they found a more convenient opportunity, trust would cease to exist, and the very idea of a promise would lose its value.
It is true that the construction worker acted honestly by informing the client of his decision. He did not disappear or try to deceive him. However, from a Kantian perspective, that is not enough to justify his actions. He withdrew because a more advantageous alternative arose for him, while the client had organized plans and expectations based on his word.
From this point of view, a person’s word has moral value of its own and should not depend on what is convenient at the time. For that reason, the construction worker would be morally in the wrong. The new job may be an excellent opportunity, but he should have honored his commitment or, at the very least, carefully renegotiated it before accepting the offer.
The second lawyer takes an ethics of consequences approach, also known as utilitarianism. According to this perspective, the morally right decision is the one that produces the greatest overall balance of benefits over harms. To evaluate the case, then, we need to consider who gains and who loses as a result of the worker’s decision.
On one side, withdrawing brings significant benefits to the worker: formal employment, steadier income, employment rights, greater financial security, and the possibility of providing a better quality of life for himself and his family in the long term.
On the other side, the client suffers some harm. He will need to find another professional, may face delays to the project, and may have to pay more to get the job done.
For a utilitarian, the central question is how to weigh these benefits and harms. If the inconvenience caused to the client is relatively small compared with the positive impact the new opportunity could have on the lives of the worker and his family, then withdrawing from the job may be morally justified.
For that reason, the lawyer concludes that withdrawing is morally acceptable, provided the worker takes steps to reduce the harm caused to the client. These steps could include giving advance notice, returning any deposit he received, and, if possible, recommending another professional who can do the job.
The third lawyer takes a liberal perspective. In his view, the worker acted legitimately by accepting the new job opportunity. From this perspective, no one should be forced to remain bound by an agreement that has become significantly less advantageous to their life. Even so, individual freedom does not remove the responsibility to act honestly and considerately toward others.
The liberal lawyer begins with a fundamental question: by accepting the job, did the worker give up his future freedom? The answer tends to be no. From this perspective, agreeing to do a job or providing an estimate does not make someone the property of the person who hired them. Each individual remains free to decide the course of their professional life.
For that reason, the worker would be morally justified in accepting the new opportunity. The formal job offers greater financial stability, employment rights, social security, and better prospects for him and his family. Moreover, he did not leave the client without an explanation. He communicated his decision as soon as he concluded that he could no longer do the job.
On the other hand, the liberal perspective also recognizes that the client is an individual who made plans based on that commitment. Trust in voluntary agreements is essential to the functioning of a free society. If breaking the agreement causes the client harm, there may be a duty to make amends or provide compensation.
The lawyer therefore concludes that accepting the job is morally justified. However, the freedom to seek a better life does not eliminate responsibility for the expectations one has created. In other words, the worker may withdraw from the job, but he should do so in good faith, communicate his decision transparently, and try to minimize the harm caused to the client.
The fourth lawyer bases his argument on virtue ethics, inspired by Aristotle. From this perspective, not every decision should be evaluated by absolute rules or only by its consequences. What matters most is acting in accordance with the virtues of a good person, such as prudence, responsibility, honesty, and a sense of justice.
For this lawyer, accepting the job is not necessarily the mistake. The problem would arise if the worker had made the commitment without properly considering his circumstances, left the client without alternatives, or acted solely in his own interest without considering the impact of his decision on others.
On the other hand, prudence is also a virtue. A responsible person should not ignore opportunities that could significantly improve his life and his family’s. From this perspective, accepting the job is a legitimate and even reasonable decision.
However, the commitment made to the client does not disappear entirely. It creates a moral responsibility that remains even after withdrawing from the job. The worker should therefore act virtuously: offer a sincere explanation, communicate his decision transparently, try to minimize the inconvenience caused, and, if necessary, compensate the client for any additional losses resulting from his choice.
Thus, Aristotelian ethics neither fully condemns nor completely absolves the worker. Instead, it seeks a balance between the legitimate pursuit of a better life and the responsibility that comes with commitments.
After hearing the arguments, the court reached the following verdicts:
- The first lawyer, an advocate of Kant’s ethics of duty, voted against the worker. In his view, a promise creates a moral obligation that must be honored regardless of any advantages that may arise later.
- The second lawyer, the utilitarian, voted in favor of the worker. In his assessment, the benefits of the new job opportunity seem to outweigh the harm caused to the client.
- The third lawyer, representing the liberal perspective, also voted in favor of the worker. According to him, no one should be forced to give up an opportunity that could significantly improve their life, provided they act honestly and respect their commitments.
- Finally, the Aristotelian lawyer voted partially in the worker’s favor. In his view, accepting the job is a legitimate decision, but that does not remove the worker’s responsibility to minimize the harm caused to the client.
Based on these arguments, the final ruling of the Court of Four Lawyers was this: the worker is morally justified in accepting the new job opportunity, but remains responsible for the consequences of withdrawing from the agreement. He should therefore act in good faith, communicate his decision transparently, and take reasonable steps to reduce or make up for the inconvenience caused to the client.
This conclusion does not make him a dishonest person, but it also does not entirely free him from the responsibilities that come with the word he gave.
Perhaps one of the main lessons of this exercise is that justice rarely means choosing one side and ignoring the other. In most cases, it requires finding a proportionate solution that recognizes the legitimate interests of everyone involved.
Personally, I find the Aristotelian approach the most convincing in this case. Unlike more rigid positions, it seeks to balance responsibility, prudence, and sensitivity to the specific circumstances. Rather than fully condemning or absolving the worker, this view recognizes that his choice is legitimate while preserving his moral responsibility toward the client. In this way, it seeks a solution that respects both the worker’s chance to improve his life and the trust placed in him by the person who hired his services.
If this kind of dilemma seems familiar, that is no coincidence. Many of life’s hardest decisions involve conflicts between duties, consequences, individual freedom, and virtues. The exercise in this article was inspired by discussions in Michael Sandel’s book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, an accessible and engaging exploration of the main theories of moral and political philosophy. Throughout the book, Sandel presents real-world cases like this one and shows how different philosophical schools can lead to different conclusions about what is just. For anyone who wants to explore Kant, utilitarianism, liberalism, Aristotle, and the foundations of justice in greater depth, it is a highly recommended read.
Did you enjoy the review? Get your copy now: Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?