4 ms·

Well, the irony of those two examples is one is using tech to skirt laws and the other to enforce laws. It's hard for me to consider both of them unethical at t

Well, the irony of those two examples is one is using tech to skirt laws and the other to enforce laws. It's hard for me to consider both of them unethical at the same time without resorting to raw partisanism.

watwut 9y ago
I don't think there is ethical need to follow laws you find despicable. I think that one should follow laws as long as those laws don't require you to do something bad. And there is no ethical requirement to contribute to law enforcement - it is not even against the law. You can also agree with law and find agency tactics bad.
- mbrumlow 9y ago
  Yes, but what is "bad"? Maybe I find it despicable that I can't scam you out of money if you happen to be dumb enough to let me. There are actually cutlers int he world that are "shame on you if you get scammed" That is the entire problem when you talk about ethics at all beyond a few truths that 99% of people can agree on. So one could argue not following any law becomes unethical -- and the only ethical thing to do is follow the law until it is changed, which puts us at a interesting juxtaposition -- that sometimes you have to be unethical to be ethical! This will always be the hard part of making rules or laws on things that are so subjective such as ethics.
  - watwut 9y ago
    When we talk about my personal ethics or morality as a developer, I do not need wide consensus over the issue. It is about what I personally will or will not do. Or under which circumstances would I do it. The discussion with others does help me to decide and they can bring arguments I did not considered, but decision is mine. There is wide agreement about many ethical questions through. I also think that ignoring ethics question completely is easy cop out - yes one should do it no matter what job. I don't think that law and ethics is the same. I think that following law is ethical where law species competition rules (accounting, regulation etc).
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  I don't think I can completely agree with that. Should a meatpacker who skirts food safety regulation get an ethical pass because they believe government regulation is despicable? I think the more ethical stance would be to advocate for changing the law.
  - watwut 9y ago
    I would give "ethical pass" when when law is forcing you to do something unethical. When you have choice between ethics and law (and it is important big ethical thing). I don't give "ethical pass" for not following law where you merely disagree with law or find it pointless or an obstacle to more money. There is also difference between "breaking law" and "not joining effort to enforce the law". Again, if I find the law bad it might be unethical to join effort to enforce it, but it might still be fully ethical to follow the law and unethical to break it. For example, unnecessary hygiene food regulation. Easy to see extreme example of law to break would be anti-jew law or fugitive slave law or something like that. The point is that breaking law is ok not merely when you disagree with law, but when it forces you to break ethics. Not just when you benefit from breaking it.
ryandrake 9y ago
It can be argued that in one case, skirting the law results in arguably better service for happy customers. In the other case, enforcing the law results directly in human misery and torn apart families. This is why it’s questionable to use “legal” as a substitute for “moral” or “ethical.”
- tropo 9y ago
  Families are never torn apart by American immigration law. There is nothing in the law that prevents an American citizen from leaving the USA. If they won't leave, then that says something about how much they value the family. You could make a similar argument for any crime that results in prison time. Locking up murderers results directly in human misery and torn apart families. This case is far more severe: we don't allow the family to move into the prison to live with the criminal. We even separate nursing babies from their mothers.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Why not? They're two different situations.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I'm the one asking "Why?" in effect. I can't answer your question since it would be effectively answering my own. I think the Uber example in particular assumes that following laws is itself essential. But opposing immigration laws and enforcement of them undercuts that axiom. I don't see how people resolve the tension there in a philosophically coherent way.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    Not all laws are created equal. I personally condemn both actions, as I find them both to be quite harmful.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      What makes taxi rules fair but immigration rules unfair?

watwut 9y ago

I don't think there is ethical need to follow laws you find despicable. I think that one should follow laws as long as those laws don't require you to do something bad. And there is no ethical requirement to contribute to law enforcement - it is not even against the law. You can also agree with law and find agency tactics bad.

mbrumlow 9y ago
Yes, but what is "bad"? Maybe I find it despicable that I can't scam you out of money if you happen to be dumb enough to let me. There are actually cutlers int he world that are "shame on you if you get scammed" That is the entire problem when you talk about ethics at all beyond a few truths that 99% of people can agree on. So one could argue not following any law becomes unethical -- and the only ethical thing to do is follow the law until it is changed, which puts us at a interesting juxtaposition -- that sometimes you have to be unethical to be ethical! This will always be the hard part of making rules or laws on things that are so subjective such as ethics.
- watwut 9y ago
  When we talk about my personal ethics or morality as a developer, I do not need wide consensus over the issue. It is about what I personally will or will not do. Or under which circumstances would I do it. The discussion with others does help me to decide and they can bring arguments I did not considered, but decision is mine. There is wide agreement about many ethical questions through. I also think that ignoring ethics question completely is easy cop out - yes one should do it no matter what job. I don't think that law and ethics is the same. I think that following law is ethical where law species competition rules (accounting, regulation etc).
s73v3r_ 9y ago
I don't think I can completely agree with that. Should a meatpacker who skirts food safety regulation get an ethical pass because they believe government regulation is despicable? I think the more ethical stance would be to advocate for changing the law.
- watwut 9y ago
  I would give "ethical pass" when when law is forcing you to do something unethical. When you have choice between ethics and law (and it is important big ethical thing). I don't give "ethical pass" for not following law where you merely disagree with law or find it pointless or an obstacle to more money. There is also difference between "breaking law" and "not joining effort to enforce the law". Again, if I find the law bad it might be unethical to join effort to enforce it, but it might still be fully ethical to follow the law and unethical to break it. For example, unnecessary hygiene food regulation. Easy to see extreme example of law to break would be anti-jew law or fugitive slave law or something like that. The point is that breaking law is ok not merely when you disagree with law, but when it forces you to break ethics. Not just when you benefit from breaking it.

ryandrake 9y ago

It can be argued that in one case, skirting the law results in arguably better service for happy customers. In the other case, enforcing the law results directly in human misery and torn apart families. This is why it’s questionable to use “legal” as a substitute for “moral” or “ethical.”

tropo 9y ago
Families are never torn apart by American immigration law. There is nothing in the law that prevents an American citizen from leaving the USA. If they won't leave, then that says something about how much they value the family. You could make a similar argument for any crime that results in prison time. Locking up murderers results directly in human misery and torn apart families. This case is far more severe: we don't allow the family to move into the prison to live with the criminal. We even separate nursing babies from their mothers.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

Why not? They're two different situations.

humanrebar 9y ago
I'm the one asking "Why?" in effect. I can't answer your question since it would be effectively answering my own. I think the Uber example in particular assumes that following laws is itself essential. But opposing immigration laws and enforcement of them undercuts that axiom. I don't see how people resolve the tension there in a philosophically coherent way.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Not all laws are created equal. I personally condemn both actions, as I find them both to be quite harmful.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    What makes taxi rules fair but immigration rules unfair?