4 ms·

>incredibly valid for Silicon Valley engineers these days If one could engineer a solution to save lives, but instead uses his/her talents to build the nth ite

>incredibly valid for Silicon Valley engineers these days If one could engineer a solution to save lives, but instead uses his/her talents to build the nth iteration of, say, a food delivery app, does he/she bear any ethical culpability? Because it seems the bigger challenge for engineers is not avoiding overt evil, but in the opportunity cost of spending their time on work of significantly lesser consequence than their talents might allow.

matuszeg 9y ago
So youre saying we need another messaging app?
lsc 9y ago
I think you're taking the idea too far. look at what the civil engineers have: https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/ https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/ Yes, yes, we have a responsibility to not defraud people, and to not work on obviously evil projects, and even to speak out if your employer is, say, building a bridge that is not up to the clearly defined, established standards. (which is super different from when you think a bridge will collapse, but can't explain why in a way that other people can understand. This parenthetical part is particularly important, I think.) But we are free humans, and if we want to waste our lives on trivial things, so long as those trivial things don't hurt others, that's our choice. We are humans, and humans need entertainment, we need play.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  >look at what the civil engineers have Well, that's a narrow view of ethical guidelines in conducting one's work. We all generally agree that people shouldn't be evil. My question sits above that. Is it enough for a moral society to simply decline to do evil? Or do we have a responsibility beyond that? And if it's the latter, then whose responsibility is it?
  - lsc 9y ago
    Declining to do evil, with real standards for what that means is, at the very least, a good first step, and a possible one.
flamedoge 9y ago
Engineers, like most human beings, are free to waste their talent. It wouldn't be nice to demand some kind of moral responsibility from engineers just because they can do more. How they live would be up to them, and free market solution would be far better terms under which they would be convinced to do more.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  Yes, we're all free to choose, which might include doing things that are overtly immoral (as in the parent discussion). My question was whether it's just as immoral a choice to not use one's potential to help people as it is to use one's talent to overtly harm people.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >My question was whether it's just as immoral a choice to not use one's potential to help people as it is to use one's talent to overtly harm people. Is the answer to that not obvious? It's the difference between negligence and pre-meditation/mens rea.
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      The suggestion that it might be obvious is central to the question and what makes it interesting (to me). Because, yes, it would seem obvious. >It's the difference between negligence and pre-meditation/mens rea. a) you're using legal definitions when the question is about morality and b) it's not negligence to actively choose one path over another. It's simply making a decision, and I was asking if that decision can be considered a moral one. Started off as a philosophical question, but seems to have gone a bit literal. Oh well, it happens.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        >a) you're using legal definitions when the question is about morality You don't think the legal differences between those two things were based on perceived immorality?

matuszeg 9y ago

So youre saying we need another messaging app?

lsc 9y ago

I think you're taking the idea too far. look at what the civil engineers have: https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/ https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/ Yes, yes, we have a responsibility to not defraud people, and to not work on obviously evil projects, and even to speak out if your employer is, say, building a bridge that is not up to the clearly defined, established standards. (which is super different from when you think a bridge will collapse, but can't explain why in a way that other people can understand. This parenthetical part is particularly important, I think.) But we are free humans, and if we want to waste our lives on trivial things, so long as those trivial things don't hurt others, that's our choice. We are humans, and humans need entertainment, we need play.

unclebucknasty 9y ago
>look at what the civil engineers have Well, that's a narrow view of ethical guidelines in conducting one's work. We all generally agree that people shouldn't be evil. My question sits above that. Is it enough for a moral society to simply decline to do evil? Or do we have a responsibility beyond that? And if it's the latter, then whose responsibility is it?
- lsc 9y ago
  Declining to do evil, with real standards for what that means is, at the very least, a good first step, and a possible one.

flamedoge 9y ago

Engineers, like most human beings, are free to waste their talent. It wouldn't be nice to demand some kind of moral responsibility from engineers just because they can do more. How they live would be up to them, and free market solution would be far better terms under which they would be convinced to do more.

unclebucknasty 9y ago
Yes, we're all free to choose, which might include doing things that are overtly immoral (as in the parent discussion). My question was whether it's just as immoral a choice to not use one's potential to help people as it is to use one's talent to overtly harm people.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >My question was whether it's just as immoral a choice to not use one's potential to help people as it is to use one's talent to overtly harm people. Is the answer to that not obvious? It's the difference between negligence and pre-meditation/mens rea.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    The suggestion that it might be obvious is central to the question and what makes it interesting (to me). Because, yes, it would seem obvious. >It's the difference between negligence and pre-meditation/mens rea. a) you're using legal definitions when the question is about morality and b) it's not negligence to actively choose one path over another. It's simply making a decision, and I was asking if that decision can be considered a moral one. Started off as a philosophical question, but seems to have gone a bit literal. Oh well, it happens.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      >a) you're using legal definitions when the question is about morality You don't think the legal differences between those two things were based on perceived immorality?