Moral Entanglement: What Do You Owe When You Can’t Opt Out?

The NYT Ethicist column this week tackled a moral dilemma: A woman receives rental income via a family trust. One of the trust’s tenants is ICE, using a building as a short-term holding facility. She can’t separate the income or cancel the lease, but she feels morally implicated. What should she do?

I won’t lie: when I saw the NYT headline in my inbox:
“Is It OK to Earn Rental Income From an ICE Holding Facility?”—
my gut reaction was immediate and visceral:

“No.”

But this wouldn’t be interesting if the problem were that simple.

Let’s break it down from a Ledger perspective.

---

• ICE is doing harm

There is no getting around it. Unidentified agents snatching people from the street, from immigration court, from citizenship interviews. Sending people to notorious foreign prisons without due process.

These acts violate the human dignity of those involved—both immigrant and officer—as well as the stated foundational beliefs of a nation founded on liberty.

---

• Accepting income from ICE is an evil of indifference… with a caveat

Agency and personal cost of action matter when weighing an ethical choice. The letter writer does not control the trust, so she cannot divest from ownership of the ICE facility unilaterally. And those who do control it have chosen to take no action.

She could resign from the trust, but her husband would receive her share—and with their investments entangled, she would functionally make no change. Unless she took radical action, her agency is limited by the system. That matters.

---

• Witnessing the harm matters

Where we direct our attention matters. The writer could easily absolve herself by throwing up her hands and accepting there is nothing to be done. But she isn’t doing that; she’s looking to balance the ledger.

The columnist offers a solution: channel the income to places that address the core ethical issue—the mistreatment of immigrants. Organizations like the ACLU or legal nonprofits supporting detainees become a way to act on moral discomfort.

---

• Response doesn’t erase harm, but it shifts the ledger

The goal of the Ledger is not to balance good and bad, but to maintain a permanent record. One act does not erase another.

If she chooses to aid ICE detainees, the oppression doesn’t stop. But she will be adding more good into the world. While small, over time small goods accumulate. The ripple effect of her response may only nudge the ship of oppression slightly off course—but on a long journey, even a one-degree shift in heading leads to a very different destination.

---

My take: She’s morally entangled, but not morally paralyzed. What she does next matters.

If you're ready to explore practical philosophy for everyday ethical decisions, without the academic jargon, subscribe to Radical Kindness: Empathy as Rebellion. Every week, I share frameworks for navigating moral complexity, personal stories of growth through adversity, and tools for building a more ethical life. Join a growing number of thoughtful readers who are figuring out how to be good humans in a complicated world.