THE -JOB ETHICIST- TAP : CHARITY ( A }

THIS IS not a new problem. Some of the most famous philanthropies in the country have origins tied to the monopolies and anti-union violence of the Gilded Age [ Carnegie, Rockefeller ] to the promotions of antisemitism [ Ford ] and to other affronts.

There is another forward-looking concern, though, more directly pertinent to your situation. When the donor is still engaged in the objectionable practices, there can be pragmatic reasons for imposing social, if not legal costs.

It might make some people think twice about the sins they commit in building their fortunes.

Your own reluctance to apply may reflect that logic; you worry that lending your labor to this institution amounts to condoning the source of its endowment.

Still, it's worth thinking about what social condemnation can and cannot achieve. It won't eliminate the awful activity ; when there's money to be made, people unconcerned with mainstream moral judgment  will pursue it.

Laws in these cases have to supplement norms. What social condemnation can do, indiscriminately applied, is deter the beneficial activity, in part by keeping people like you from participating in the philanthropic work.

Again, wrongdoing that's widely known is hard to launder away : people aren't being deceived.

The greater risk is that shunning '' bad '' money could reduce its prospects of doing good.

!WOW! THANKS Professor Kwame Anthony Appiah who teaches philosophy at N.Y.U.