Bullshit Jobs: Kantian and Utilitarian Perspectives

Office Space is a 1999 American Comedy by Mike Judge that satirizes work in a software company in the 90s. The film was widely acclaimed for its sympathetic portrayal of routine IT employees and general white collar professionals who have to put up with undesirable jobs that they lacked passion in (Judge et al 12). The film best represents what anthropologist David Graeber terms as “bullshit jobs”, which are in essence unnecessary in the economy and unsatisfying to their doers. According to Graeber (4), Bullshit jobs have increased in the present day economy and include occupations in administration, service industries, corporate law, sales among many others, where the doers know that they are unproductive or add no social value. Their jobs instead serve the sensibilities and interests of the ruling class and in the end create a disillusioned workforce that hates what they do. These jobs can be juxtaposed against traditional factory, household and industrial jobs whose workforce is deliberately oppressed and punished for having “meaningful jobs” (7). In office space, Peter and his colleagues all hated their IT jobs, the mistreatment from the management and all in the end settle for meaningful jobs (Judge et al 8). For instance, Peter ended up in a construction company while Michael and Samir Joined Initrode. This paper analyzes Bullshit jobs from Kantian and Utilitarian perspectives.

Both philosophical perspectives identify the moral incorrectness of bullshit jobs. From a utilitarian perspective, actions are right if they tend to promote happiness and wrong if they offer the reverse of happiness (Barrow 151). In this case, happiness refers to absence of pain and intended pleasure while the reverse includes privatization of pleasure, pain and unhappiness (Mill 1). Bullshit jobs deprive employees of happiness as no matter how much they earn or how respected they become, they always feel that what they do is not important and does not add any value to the society. They are constantly angry and empty, which if judged from the principle of greatest happiness in utilitarianism portrays it as wrong (9). The Kantian view is that morality is acting on principle, which is doing something because it is the right thing to do. In this reasoning, something is right if it was conceived and executed for the right reasons, regardless of the consequences (Ciulla 95). The right thing may thus have bad consequences but these does not dilute the morality previously acquired. There Kantian view also addresses the question of happiness, arguing that doing the right thing does not always make people happy. Thereby, doing the right thing may not guarantee a happy life and in essence an ethical life may be devoid of happiness. Kant set out to establish a secular perspective of morality that dismissed the predominant Judeo-Christian views that dominated ethical discourse (103). In his view, the basic constructs of morality was goodwill which was established through reason. Thus, all that needed to for someone to act morally was reason rather than professing any faith. This view also portrays bullshit jobs as wrong, given that the basis of their execution was not right. As Graeber (9) noted, these jobs were created by the ruling class in order to prevent people from being productive, happy and with free time in their hands. It was therefore ill-intentioned and also appears morally wrong from a deontological perspective. 

Looking at the two philosophical approaches, it is apparent that David Graeber mostly applies the Kantian perspective while The Office Space demonstrates the utilitarian view.  This is because Graebber (1-4) focuses on the foundations of bullshit jobs more so from the 1930 prediction of John Maynard Keynes that the end of the 20^th century will witness automation and significant reduction of human involvement at work. He argues that this forecast has not come to pass for deliberate reasons – the creation of unnecessary jobs by the ruling class in order to deny people freedom. Thus, bullshit jobs are morally wrong because their existence is for the wrong reasons, regardless of the consequences they create. On the other hand, the Office Space suggests the utilitarian view that is premised on the principle of the greatest happiness. The likes of Peter and Michael were both unhappy at their jobs and this underlined the central conflict in the film (Judge et al 13). The resolution is presented as both parties ending up with jobs that made them much happier. This theory of utilitarianism clearly best describes the problem with bullshit jobs. There is no happiness to the employees and instead it is privatized by the ruling class. 

This paper has explored the phenomenon of Bullshit jobs as fore-grounded by Graebber in relation to the Office Space film and philosophical perspectives. Apparently, these types of jobs have no social value and render the performers unhappy and were conceived under ill motives by the ruling class. Both the Kantian and utilitarian perspective suggests that these jobs are morally incorrect, with Graebber’s account more Kantian. The Office Space on the other hand follows the utilitarian principle of greatest happiness and is more indicative of what is exactly wrong with bullshit jobs. 

Works Cited

Barrow, Robin. Utilitarianism: A contemporary statement. Routledge, 2015.

Ciulla, Joanne B. The ethics of leadership. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003.

Graeber, D. “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs, Strike! Magazine, August 17, 2013.” (2013).

Judge, Mike, et al. Office Space. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2002.Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green and Company, 1901.