I am a federal employee who is eligible for retirement. I have a job that is intellectually challenging, gives back to the public and is personally rewarding. As federal government employees in my department face potential layoffs, is it ethical for me to defer retirement? There would be no negative impact for me, and I am certain I would be offered other jobs because of my expertise. — Name Withheld
You may believe that retiring would spare someone else from being laid off, but in reality, it’s hard to know whether your departure would do so. Work-force reductions are typically complex, and the ripple effects of one departure are difficult to predict.
There are, in the meantime, countless ways to help others without stepping away from work that you value. Just for example, it has been estimated that donating $3,000 — about $50 a week for a year — could save a life through organizations like the Malaria Consortium. (With the recent evisceration of our global health programs, private donations to effective charities are more vital than ever.)
And your continued service has worth — to you and to the agency. The presence of someone skilled, experienced and committed to public service could strengthen the agency, at a time when the federal work force faces unprecedented strain. Staying can help stabilize the “ship of state” — an important benefit in these turbulent times.
A Bonus Question
I work in a city agency in New York City. We are prepared for visits from ICE and have on hand multilingual “red cards” that help people know and assert their rights if questioned by nonlocal authorities. I want to give them to workers I see regularly, like deli and delivery workers. Is it OK for me to hand these “know your rights” cards to anyone I think might need them? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
These cards, which the Immigrant Legal Resource Center makes available for download, detail universal protections if you’re approached by an immigration agent, like refusing warrantless entry, consulting with a lawyer or asking if you’re free to leave. In general, I see no reason not to distribute them to people you think might find them useful. But there are a few points to keep in mind.
If you’re sharing materials during work hours or in your official role, you’ll want to verify your agency’s guidelines about distributing resources. If you’re acting privately, use your personal time and resources to keep these efforts separate from your job. Partnering with local community groups that already distribute these materials could increase your impact.
Bear in mind too that giving the card to someone might imply that you think they’re undocumented. Because there’s no special way documented people look, making that assumption relies on stereotypes. So make sure that you’re approaching workers thoughtfully, and in a quiet moment, so they don’t feel singled out or uncomfortable. And make it clear that these cards enumerate rights that everyone has.
Which doesn’t mean these rights are always respected. Recent court rulings show that ICE officers sometimes ignore them. Asserting rights isn’t a guaranteed shield. Still, reminding agents of the state that they have duties as well as powers is one of the ways we can try to reduce the risk of tyranny.
Readers Respond
Last week’s question was from a reader who relies on Facebook for making plans around his hobby but disagrees with its parent company Meta’s enabling of extremist rhetoric. He wrote: “I do not use the social network much, except for everything around my hobby: social dancing. Within the dancing community, almost all event planning and communication is done via Facebook. So I am very dependent on both the main app and Messenger for this part of my life. With Meta’s recent moves to endorse political extremism, hate speech and general nastiness, I am no longer comfortable supporting their business. . . . What is the ethical thing to do?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “Unless your departure is part of a larger movement, it won’t affect Meta’s behavior. And leaving might cut you off from people you care about — like your dance partners. Holding your nose and staying could be wiser. That doesn’t mean soaking in the cesspool. You can tweak your settings and treat Facebook more like a group chat than a broadcast.
In the end, Facebook isn’t a neutral public square, but it’s not a cartoon villain either. It’s a business, shaped by incentives, feedback loops and pressure. If we want better platforms, we need to be clear not just about what we reject but also about the kind of digital world we’d like to see. . . . if people with different views are going to share the floor, we need to make sure there’s room for everyone to move.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
Enter the platform with purpose, go directly to the content you need and exit promptly. This kind of deliberate, minimal engagement reduces Meta’s ability to monetize your attention, especially through ad impressions and data harvesting. It may seem small, but this behavior contributes to collective resistance. It demonstrates that our values matter — not just in word but in how we interact with the systems around us. — Shawnna
⬥
I have decided to stay on Facebook, to post my (strong) views regularly, in a way that’s honest yet respectful, and to post news articles that bear reading. I have both Republican and Democrat friends, and I think they respect my right to speak out on issues that are important to me. I think that resigning and retreating from the public sphere just gives hate and fascism more room to flourish. — Dian
⬥
The Ethicist suggests that leaving Facebook will have no effect unless it is part of a larger movement. Well, where exactly does he think such a movement starts? Write your fellow group members to suggest that you sign up to a less toxic provider. I’m here to tell you that the pleasure of reading, connecting, sharing media and planning events is not Facebook’s property. You shouldn’t be, either. — Shayna
⬥
All large movements start with one person. If you think the world is a better place having the Zuckerbergs, Musks and Bezoses in it, then keep on supporting them. If you don’t like the direction the world is going in because of Facebook, X and Amazon, then don’t support them. Leaving Facebook, X and Amazon was one of the best things I have done for my mental health. It’s easier than you think. The world can be a better place, and that starts one person at a time. — Teresa
⬥
I disagree that anyone should feel there is any level of social sacrifice to be made by deleting your account(s). As a former social media addict, I can attest to the benefit of cutting that cord. Almost immediately I found myself to be more intentional about fostering relationships in the nondigital world. While I agree that the political and moral misgivings of supporting such a company are valid, the most compelling reason to wean yourself off Meta’s products is precisely the reason the inquirer is using to justify staying. Being rid of socials allows you to form more genuine connections and prioritize those who mean the most to you in real life. — Clay
Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. To submit a query, send an email to [email protected].
The post Should I Retire if My Fellow Federal Employees Are Facing Layoffs? appeared first on New York Times.
