Moral Debate on Sexual Harassment NDAs
The topic of sexual harassment has attracted more public attention in recent years, which urges philosophers to consider its moral aspects more closely. Scott Altman’s article “Selling Silence: The Morality of Sexual Harassment NDAs ” (2022) was published in the Journal of Applied Philosophy. The author argues that nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) for sexual harassment “fail to warn future victims and undermine deterrence” (Altman, 2022, p. 702).
Altman (2022) states that while NDAs protect victims by providing them with compensation, they require victims to stay silent. It violates an individual’s moral duty to prevent any future harm by not warning potential victims of the harassment. Additionally, NDAs fail to appropriately punish offenders by hiding their guilt.
Therefore, NDAs make both the state and victims of sexual harassment complicit in the crime. The author concludes that it violates the moral duties of citizens and the government. However, the article’s thesis is not plausible as it rejects basic human freedoms and important legal implications of NDAs.
Arguments Supporting the Moral Critique of NDAs
The thesis that the author of the article proposes states that sexual harassment NDAs should not be enforced. Altman (2022) studies the moral aspects of NDAs, which also concern legal norms and policies. The author elaborates on the use of NDAs as the main instrument that ensures that perpetrators compensate victims of sexual harassment. Additionally, NDAs facilitate the settlement of such cases, protecting victims in court without losing their privacy.
Altman (2022) also claims that NDAs help to keep dignity and avoid public scrutiny, traumatic experiences, and possible victim exposure. However, the author argues that all these functions of NDAs do not justify the violation of moral duties that they bring. Several arguments are proposed to protect the thesis being discussed in the article.
First, the author suggests that some victims have a moral duty to publicly talk about sexual assault and harassment. Altman (2022) states that “silence about sexual assault and harassment enables significant harm” (p. 702). Victims carry an ethical responsibility to alert other citizens about possible sexual harassment that the perpetrator may commit.
Signing NDAs prevents them from fulfilling their moral duties, violating other people’s security rights. At the same time, the author acknowledges that exposing the fact of sexual assault is related to certain risks for the victim. They can be threatened or harmed by a perpetrator, get publicly accused, or suffer traumatic experiences related to social scrutiny.
Another argument provided by the author is the criminal complicity that NDAs imply for victims and the state. Altman (2022) assumes that NDAs deprive victims of the opportunity to fulfill their moral duty to prevent future sexual harassment. As a result, they share indirect responsibility for the wrongdoing as they agree to stay silent and do not warn the public.
Additionally, the government is complicit as it allows NDAs to be signed in such cases. It prevents perpetrators from being punished accordingly and gives citizens the protection they deserve. The government also does not use the opportunity to deter future crimes by exposing offenders. The arguments presented in the article focus on the moral benefits of the whole society, which do not reflect individual cases.
Counterarguments: Legal Implications and Victims’ Rights
Even though the article provides the benefits of NDAs for victims’ security and protection, it denies them as morally wrong. All the argument is built around the fact that victims and the state have a moral obligation to protect citizens by deterring future sexual harassment cases. However, Altman (2022), at the beginning of the article, elaborates on the legal implications of NDAs. They ensure that the victim receives compensation and due process in court.
The ban on NDAs for sexual harassment cases will lead to even higher chances of such cases occurring. Potential perpetrators will acknowledge the fact that they have an opportunity not to be held accountable for their wrongdoings, as they do not have any kind of legal agreement. It will be harder for victims to prove the harm they were subjected to, as they may not have appropriate evidence. NDAs serve as a confirmation of wrongdoing that establishes the legal framework of the crime committed.
Additionally, the victim has the right to decide whether to keep their privacy or warn others. The argument about the morality of disclosing the crime cannot be plausible, as it does not consider individual freedom. People are not morally obligated to value public safety more than their own.
By speaking publicly about sexual harassment, victims can get both mental and physical harm that justifies their right to stay silent about it. It does not make them complicit with perpetrators as they try to protect their privacy and safety. Additionally, the state provides victims with the opportunity to fulfill their basic freedoms by signing NDAs for sexual harassment cases, which does not violate any moral obligations.
The author’s argument is not plausible as it rejects victims’ freedoms and rights and the legal implications of NDAs. Altman (2022) assumes that victims have a moral obligation to warn other people to deter future crimes. However, they also have a right to protect their safety and privacy, which does not violate morality. Additionally, signing NDAs does not make victims and the state complicit with perpetrators, as they fulfill basic human rights for security. Therefore, the thesis of the article is controversial and cannot be considered properly justified by the author.
Reference
Altman, S. (2022). Selling silence: The morality of sexual harassment NDAs. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 39(4), 698-720. Web.