48 ms·

There's a big ethical difference between "we wrote some generic plans for what now seems to be unethical but who knows how it could be interpreted in the future

There's a big ethical difference between "we wrote some generic plans for what now seems to be unethical but who knows how it could be interpreted in the future when decision makers ask for plans and expect something well-researched and not half-cocked, and it's better to be prepared than unprepared" and "decision makers actually decided that they want to do something unethical so they asked for the plans so that they could actually plan some real, unethical operation, and only because of some unforeseen reason did they cancel their unethical plans, and we journalists are reporting today on their unethical intentions." Both are plans. Devising hypothetical plans is not unethical even if the plans as executed wouldn't be ethical.

thephyber 9y ago
> Devising hypothetical plans is not unethical even if the plans as executed wouldn't be ethical. I'm torn. This seems like a stretch. Sure, it's possible that the writer here was just stating facts. But if they wrote it as a suggestion for some power-hungry General to "burn the ships"[1] similar to the Russian general in "The Sum of All Fears", then it's certainly unethical. If they did it just to provide options to the rest of the Pentagon in case some rogue general did this, then it's likely neutrally-ethical. There are ethics involved in simply planning a menu of options. What options are on the menu? How are the options ordered? What options are left off? People react based on the options presented to them and in what order they are presented. [1] http://travisrobertson.com/leadership/burn-ships-succeed-die/ http://travisrobertson.com/leadership/burn-ships-succeed-die...
- solatic 9y ago
  I'm not arguing that devising these plans is ethical. Recall Kranzberg's First Law of Technology: that technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral. Rather that the existence of the plans and the decision to develop them cannot be judged on an ethical basis.

thephyber 9y ago

> Devising hypothetical plans is not unethical even if the plans as executed wouldn't be ethical. I'm torn. This seems like a stretch. Sure, it's possible that the writer here was just stating facts. But if they wrote it as a suggestion for some power-hungry General to "burn the ships"[1] similar to the Russian general in "The Sum of All Fears", then it's certainly unethical. If they did it just to provide options to the rest of the Pentagon in case some rogue general did this, then it's likely neutrally-ethical. There are ethics involved in simply planning a menu of options. What options are on the menu? How are the options ordered? What options are left off? People react based on the options presented to them and in what order they are presented. [1] http://travisrobertson.com/leadership/burn-ships-succeed-die/ http://travisrobertson.com/leadership/burn-ships-succeed-die...

solatic 9y ago
I'm not arguing that devising these plans is ethical. Recall Kranzberg's First Law of Technology: that technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral. Rather that the existence of the plans and the decision to develop them cannot be judged on an ethical basis.