Does It Matter If Someone Else Would Do It Anyway?

When Someone Else Would Do It Anyway

Many people face a difficult question when choosing a career: what if the work I’m doing is harmful, but if I don’t do it, someone else will? This idea—that your role is replaceable—can make it seem like your personal choice doesn’t matter much. If the job gets done regardless, does it really change anything if you’re the one doing it?

This line of thinking is common in debates about working in industries like fossil fuels, tobacco, weapons, or certain types of finance and tech. Advocates of ‘earning to give’ sometimes argue that taking a high-paying job in a controversial sector is acceptable because the harm would happen anyway, and by earning more, you can do more good elsewhere. But is this reasoning sound? And what does it mean for how we think about responsibility, ethics, and impact?

What Replaceability Actually Means

At its core, replaceability is a counterfactual idea: it asks what would have happened if you hadn’t taken a particular job. If the same work would have been done by someone else, then your direct contribution to that work is effectively zero in terms of changing outcomes. In that case, the argument goes, your moral responsibility for the harm is also reduced or eliminated.

For example, imagine a company needs one more salesperson to meet its quarterly targets. If you decline the job, they hire someone else instead, and the same number of products are sold. From a purely outcome-focused perspective, your decision didn’t change the world’s exposure to that product. If the product is harmful, then the harm occurs regardless of whether you took the job.

But this simple picture ignores several important complications. Real labor markets are messy, and hiring decisions depend on many factors: how many qualified candidates are available, how urgently the role needs to be filled, whether the company is expanding or contracting, and how much extra value a particular employee brings.

When Replaceability Holds—and When It Doesn’t

Replaceability is more plausible in some situations than others. It tends to be strongest when:

• The role is clearly defined and easy to fill (e.g., many entry-level or standardized positions).
• There is a large pool of qualified candidates actively looking for work.
• The employer is indifferent between candidates and will simply hire the next person on the list.

In these cases, it’s reasonable to think that declining the job won’t stop the work from happening; it will just shift it to someone else.

However, replaceability breaks down when:

• The role is highly specialized or requires rare skills.
• The employer is selective and may not fill the position if the right person isn’t available.
• Your performance is significantly better than average, so your presence increases the company’s output or influence.
• The company is operating near capacity and only hires when it can clearly justify the cost.

In these situations, your decision to take or decline the job can actually change what the company does. If you’re unusually good at the job, your contribution might make the company more effective, more profitable, or more influential than it would have been otherwise. That means your personal impact isn’t zero—even if someone else eventually fills the role, the timing, scale, or quality of the work may depend on you.

The Limits of the ‘Someone Else Would Do It’ Argument

The replaceability argument is often used to justify working in industries that many people find ethically troubling. The logic is: if I don’t take this job, someone else will, so I might as well take it and use the money to do good elsewhere.

There are several problems with this reasoning:

• It assumes perfect replaceability. As discussed, many roles aren’t perfectly replaceable. Your skills, motivation, and judgment can affect how much harm (or good) the organization does.
• It ignores indirect effects. Even if the direct output is the same, your presence can influence company culture, norms, and long-term strategy. For example, a more ethical employee might push for slightly better practices, delay harmful projects, or leave earlier if things get too bad.
• It underestimates signaling effects. Choosing to work in a controversial industry sends a message. It can normalize that work, make it more attractive to others, and reduce social stigma. Over time, this can expand the industry’s talent pool and political support.
• It risks moral licensing. If you tell yourself that the harm is inevitable anyway, it becomes easier to ignore or downplay ethical concerns. This can lead to complacency and a weakening of personal moral standards.

Counterfactual Thinking vs. Moral Responsibility

Thinking in counterfactuals—what would have happened if I hadn’t done X—is a powerful tool for evaluating impact. But it doesn’t automatically resolve moral questions.

Even if your direct contribution to harm is small or zero, you may still bear some responsibility for participating in a harmful system. This is especially true if:

• You benefit personally from the harm (e.g., through high pay or status).
• You help legitimize or normalize the industry.
• You could have used your skills and opportunities to reduce harm instead of enabling it.

Philosophers and ethicists have long debated how to weigh these kinds of responsibilities. Some argue that as long as you’re not making things worse, your choice is morally permissible. Others maintain that complicity in harmful systems carries its own moral weight, regardless of whether you’re strictly necessary for the harm to occur.

When Replaceability Might Be a Reasonable Justification

Despite its limitations, the replaceability argument can be relevant in certain cases. It’s most persuasive when:

• The role is truly fungible and the company will definitely fill it.
• The harm caused by the industry is relatively small or uncertain.
• The alternative use of your skills and resources would create significantly more good.
• You have strong safeguards in place to avoid becoming desensitized or complicit in worse behavior.

For example, someone with exceptional quantitative skills might argue that working in a controversial but highly profitable finance role allows them to donate far more to effective charities than they could in a lower-paying but more obviously ethical job. If the finance role is highly replaceable and the extra donations are large and well-targeted, this could be a defensible choice.

But even in these cases, it’s important to be honest about the assumptions. You need to ask:

• How confident am I that someone else would have taken this exact role?
• How much extra good am I really doing with the extra income?
• What are the long-term effects of my participation on the industry and on my own values?

Practical Implications for Career Decisions

So what does all this mean for someone trying to make a good career choice?

Here are some practical takeaways:

• Don’t assume replaceability. Investigate the specific labor market and hiring practices of the industry and company. Is the role easy to fill? Is the company expanding or contracting? How selective are they?
• Consider your marginal impact. Ask not just what the company does, but what difference your presence makes. Are you increasing output, improving strategy, or helping the company grow faster than it otherwise would?
• Think about indirect effects. Beyond direct output, consider how your work affects company culture, public perception, and the broader ecosystem of talent and support for the industry.
• Be cautious with moral shortcuts. The ‘someone else would do it anyway’ argument can be tempting, but it shouldn’t be used to avoid hard ethical questions. It’s better to acknowledge uncertainty and trade-offs than to rely on a simplistic justification.
• Look for leverage. In many cases, the most impactful thing isn’t just avoiding harm, but actively using your position to reduce harm or redirect resources toward good. This might mean working in a controversial industry but pushing for reform, or choosing a role where you can influence policy or strategy.

Comparing Career Paths: A Simple Framework

To compare different career options, you can use a rough framework that considers:

This table is highly simplified, but it illustrates that the choice isn’t just about income versus ethics. It’s about how much harm you’re actually causing, how replaceable you are, and what indirect effects your choice might have.

FAQs About Replaceability and Ethical Careers

Does replaceability mean I’m not responsible for harm?

No. Even if someone else would have done the same job, you may still bear some responsibility for participating in a harmful system, especially if you benefit from it or help normalize it. Replaceability can reduce your marginal impact, but it doesn’t automatically eliminate moral responsibility.

Is it ever okay to work in a harmful industry?

It can be, in some cases. If the role is highly replaceable, the harm is relatively small, and you can use the income to do significantly more good, it might be a reasonable choice. But this requires careful, honest assessment of the facts and your own values.

How can I estimate whether a role is replaceable?

Look at factors like how many qualified candidates there are, how selective the employer is, whether the company is expanding or contracting, and how much extra value you bring. If the role is easy to fill and the company is eager to hire, replaceability is more likely. If the role is specialized and the company is picky, your impact is probably larger.

What if I’m already in a controversial job?

You can still make a difference. Consider how you can reduce harm from within: pushing for better practices, supporting ethical projects, or using your income to fund good causes. You can also plan a transition to a more clearly positive role when the time is right.

Does this mean I should avoid high-paying jobs in finance or tech?

Not necessarily. Many finance and tech jobs are not clearly harmful, and some can be highly beneficial. The key is to evaluate the specific role, company, and industry. If the work is genuinely harmful and you’re not replaceable, that’s a stronger reason to avoid it. If the harm is small or uncertain and the role is highly replaceable, earning to give might be a reasonable strategy.

Final Thoughts

The idea that ‘someone else would do it anyway’ is a powerful but often oversimplified way of thinking about career ethics. In some cases, it can justify working in controversial industries to do more good elsewhere. But in many others, it can be used to avoid hard questions about complicity, responsibility, and long-term impact.

The most thoughtful approach is to combine counterfactual thinking with a strong sense of moral responsibility. That means asking not just what would have happened without you, but what kind of person you want to be, what kind of world you want to help create, and how your choices contribute to that vision.

Written by

Medha Deb

Medha Deb is an editor with a master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Hyderabad. She believes that her qualification has helped her develop a deep understanding of language and its application in various contexts. Medha specializes in the areas of beauty, health, sports, and wellness and is committed to ensuring that the content on the website is…