Stinky Thinking

The New York Times Magazine

April 2, 2006

The Ethicist

By RANDY COHEN

I use my furnished condo as a summer home and rent it out the rest of the year. A potential tenant, a lady from Pakistan, seemed ideal except for one thing: the condo's ventilation is not very good, and daily cooking with heavy spices would make the curry smell impossible to remove. I felt guilty rejecting her because of her cooking, but a high ethical standard would mean a heavy financial loss. What to do? Chidong Zhang, Seattle

What you should do is stop making assumptions about what this woman would cook or even if she would cook. Perhaps she was raised in Rawalpindi by a Scottish nanny and now subsists on odorless oatmeal. Or she might want to embrace the tepid, tasteless diet that fueled America in the 50's. Or she, like me, might order too much takeout. Acting on your stereotype is not only unethical; it could also be illegal. One lawyer told me that were you to refuse to rent for the reason you give, "that would arguably constitute national origin discrimination in violation of Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act."

What you may do is make all tenants responsible for any noisome damage they do to the condo, whether with the curries of Pakistan, the stinky cheeses of France or the mysterious things my grandmother used to do with cabbages (science is baffled) or even by nonculinary aromas — anyone keep a pet badger? That same lawyer suggests that you "include a provision in the lease specifically addressing that issue, and explaining the respective parties' rights and responsibilities if things get overly smelly." Thus you can abandon prejudice, accord your tenants fragrance freedom and protect yourself from property damage.

Technology offers another fix. As philosophers and building contractors have long observed (or should have): a problem that can be solved by installing a good exhaust fan is less a matter of morality than of duct work.

UPDATE: The prospective tenant from Pakistan had to delay her trip; Zhang ended up renting the place to a New Yorker of unknown scent.

When I was an insurance-company claims adjuster, I encountered people who were unaware that they might be entitled to general damages — that is, pain and suffering — and who were willing to settle for out-of-pocket expenses. They were not represented by a lawyer. While my company went out of its way to be fair, should I have told such people that they might be able to collect more, or does company duty mean going for the lowest payment? Michael E. Tymn, Depoe Bay, Ore.

While many states have unfair-claims practices laws, these do not exempt you from acting honorably. You did indeed face a clash between your duty to your employer and your duty not to — what's the technical term? — ah, fleece the injured party. The best way to avoid being hit by cars traveling in opposite directions is to get out of the middle of the road.

Rather than trying to serve parties with conflicting interests, you should have encouraged someone else to look out for the injured party. You might simply have reminded the injured party that insurance settlements can be complicated and suggested hiring a lawyer. To proffer such conventional wisdom would not have violated your obligation to your employer — indeed, doing so might protect an employer from later accusations of deceit — but it would have saved you from many a sleepless night.

Send your queries to ethicist@nytimes.com or The Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10036, and include a daytime phone number.

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company