4 ms·

Depends. If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil? TBH, calling out a person to quit just because one don't agree h

Depends. If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil? TBH, calling out a person to quit just because one don't agree his/her employer's deeds before having a full understanding whether that person is directly involved or not, tells quite a lot about one's hubris.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil? Why should it be relevant whether you are "writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem"? Shouldn't the relevant question be whether your contribution is "net evil" or "net good"? How would you suggest we defend against an institution dividing the work to build some hypothetical ultimate evil into thousands of "regular small pieces"? Would it help any of the victims of the ultimate evil that is was built by many individuals, each one of them building a "regular small piece", instead of by one mastermind alone?
- nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
  Not everyone draws the line at the same spot. Everyone's constraints in life are different. Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > Not everyone draws the line at the same spot. Which is correct, but not a justification? > Everyone's constraints in life are different. In which case those constraints might be the justification, not simply the fact that their contribution is a small contribution, wouldn't it? > Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective. Nor is staying within the constraints of the preconceived notions that make it impossible to see the problem with someone's position. But feel free to suggest alternative approaches to this problem that you have experience to be working better.
    - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
      The use of the word 'justification' tells me that you have already judged the actions and are looking for people to explain them. This ties into the last point I was trying to make. From this, it appears (to me) unlikely that our conversation will lead to us being in agreement: we see the world quite differently. EDIT: Since you brought up the subject of what I could suggest, I'd like to add this: I'd just talk to people and see what they think: not in terms of "explain your actions" but in terms of "help me understand".
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > The use of the word 'justification' tells me that you have already judged the actions and are looking for people to explain them. Well, how else could things possibly work? Without any judgement on my part, I couldn't even know whether there is even anything I don't understand or that I disagree about, and what could I possibly expect other than that people explain their position to me? > From this, it appears (to me) unlikely that our conversation will lead to us being in agreement: we see the world quite differently. Which seems like a weird reason to me?! Aren't you essentially saying "we probably won't be in agreement because we are not in agreement"?! > Since you brought up the subject of what I could suggest, I'd like to add this: I'd just talk to people and see what they think: not in terms of "explain your actions" but in terms of "help me understand". Which are essentially synonyms? I mean, I can see that wording can make a difference in how people react, but I fail to see the fundamental difference between "explaining" and "helping to understand"?!
        nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
        As for why I think we can't come to an agreement, it's not because we are already in disagreement but because I believe (from this tiny conversation) that our views on things are so far apart that it's hard to bridge that gap in this medium and in a short period of time. As for the last part, I'd like you to consider why people react differently to those wordings. I've also observed that the wording doesn't matter if only the wording has changed but the attitude hasn't.
kybernetikos 9y ago
I once asked a guy who worked on control systems for missiles what he thought about the ethics of it. He looked confused and said 'I've never really thought about it until now'. We left it at that, but I consider it a win.
- antisthenes 9y ago
  There's no reason to assume by default that any worker has thought about the ethical side of his job and is in it for anything more than a good paycheck and self-interest. Techies included (and HN is good proof of that)
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    1. s/self-interest/short-sighted self-interest/ 2. still, never thinking about it guarantees that you won't notice anything is wrong, so getting someone to think about it at all is a good thing in any case, for it opens the chance that they do

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> If they are just writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem, why is that evil? Why should it be relevant whether you are "writing regular code for some subsystems' subsytem"? Shouldn't the relevant question be whether your contribution is "net evil" or "net good"? How would you suggest we defend against an institution dividing the work to build some hypothetical ultimate evil into thousands of "regular small pieces"? Would it help any of the victims of the ultimate evil that is was built by many individuals, each one of them building a "regular small piece", instead of by one mastermind alone?

nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
Not everyone draws the line at the same spot. Everyone's constraints in life are different. Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Not everyone draws the line at the same spot. Which is correct, but not a justification? > Everyone's constraints in life are different. In which case those constraints might be the justification, not simply the fact that their contribution is a small contribution, wouldn't it? > Also, talking from a position of "I know I am right. Why are you not thinking the same way as me?" is generally not effective at getting other people to see things from your perspective. Nor is staying within the constraints of the preconceived notions that make it impossible to see the problem with someone's position. But feel free to suggest alternative approaches to this problem that you have experience to be working better.
  - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
    The use of the word 'justification' tells me that you have already judged the actions and are looking for people to explain them. This ties into the last point I was trying to make. From this, it appears (to me) unlikely that our conversation will lead to us being in agreement: we see the world quite differently. EDIT: Since you brought up the subject of what I could suggest, I'd like to add this: I'd just talk to people and see what they think: not in terms of "explain your actions" but in terms of "help me understand".
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > The use of the word 'justification' tells me that you have already judged the actions and are looking for people to explain them. Well, how else could things possibly work? Without any judgement on my part, I couldn't even know whether there is even anything I don't understand or that I disagree about, and what could I possibly expect other than that people explain their position to me? > From this, it appears (to me) unlikely that our conversation will lead to us being in agreement: we see the world quite differently. Which seems like a weird reason to me?! Aren't you essentially saying "we probably won't be in agreement because we are not in agreement"?! > Since you brought up the subject of what I could suggest, I'd like to add this: I'd just talk to people and see what they think: not in terms of "explain your actions" but in terms of "help me understand". Which are essentially synonyms? I mean, I can see that wording can make a difference in how people react, but I fail to see the fundamental difference between "explaining" and "helping to understand"?!
      - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
        As for why I think we can't come to an agreement, it's not because we are already in disagreement but because I believe (from this tiny conversation) that our views on things are so far apart that it's hard to bridge that gap in this medium and in a short period of time. As for the last part, I'd like you to consider why people react differently to those wordings. I've also observed that the wording doesn't matter if only the wording has changed but the attitude hasn't.

kybernetikos 9y ago

I once asked a guy who worked on control systems for missiles what he thought about the ethics of it. He looked confused and said 'I've never really thought about it until now'. We left it at that, but I consider it a win.

antisthenes 9y ago
There's no reason to assume by default that any worker has thought about the ethical side of his job and is in it for anything more than a good paycheck and self-interest. Techies included (and HN is good proof of that)
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  1. s/self-interest/short-sighted self-interest/ 2. still, never thinking about it guarantees that you won't notice anything is wrong, so getting someone to think about it at all is a good thing in any case, for it opens the chance that they do