4 ms·

You know, yes, this is morally bankrupt. This “if I don’t do it, someone else will do it” attitude really just highlights how much more ethics training do we n

• hardwaresofton 9y ago
  Yeah but that wasn't my argument... I didn't say that "someone else would do it so they should be that person", I'm saying that if you're good at taking apart washing machines, and someone's personal washing machine happens to have names and addresses of people who are considered government dissenters on it, the question of should you sell that knowledge to the government is up to you. It varies by case, but if you try to delineate where it's OK and where it's not, it will be endlessly subjective -- in the face of that, I lean in the "do what you want" direction. I don't think there is a single discipline that's unscathed in this discussion, it's just the level to which the morals are shared in each. In the medical community, "do whatever you can to save a life" is a pretty strong propellant, but also the medical system in the US (for one) is really fucked, and if the medical community is as ethically pure as you propose them to be, I get the feeling that wouldn't have happened. [EDIT] - Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but when I think of "ethics" I just think of agreed-upon shared moral values. That is inherently up to someone or some group to decide, at some point, is it not?
  • yzmtf2008 9y ago
    >... the question of should you sell that knowledge to the government is up to you. True. But that doesn't really free you from moral judgement. > It varies by case, but if you try to delineate where it's OK and where it's not, it will be endlessly subjective -- in the face of that, I lean in the "do what you want" direction. This really depends on your value system. Of course, you can do what you want (perhaps as long as it's legal), but again, moral judgement is a separate issue. It's totally okay to be immoral, and ethics itself doesn't really have any limitations on what you would do. From a utilitarian perspective, yes, perhaps everything is endlessly subjective, but I think for most people their ethics system lies somewhere in between deontological and utilitarian, that is, there are certain moral guidelines that are more applicable even in subjective situations. Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't do anything immoral. There are many other factors for one to consider: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. Most of this have nothing to do with ethics at all, but none of it gives anyone a free pass for moral judgement. > the medical system in the US (for one) is really fucked That may be true, but we're not really talking about the system here. We're talking about the individual physicians. > "ethics" I just think of agreed-upon shared moral values Ethics is a system, sort of the "theory of morals". Ethics training is more about the logical study of these theories, and how one would apply a certain ethics system to evaluate a certain situation, rather than the "agreed-upon shared moral values". Endless engineering fields before us have faced these problem before, and the principles apply just fine in Computer Science.
    • hardwaresofton 9y ago
      > That may be true, we're not really talking about the system here, we're talking about the individual physicians. I thought of this in the context of "if ethics to everyone einvolved, is worth a lot the system would never have gotten that bad". Clearly someone missed the forest for the trees if every doctor is considered ethical but can be part of such a huge system that's failing patients (and causing the outcomes they seek to prevent). > Ethics is a system, sort of the "theory of morals". Ethics training is more about the logical study of these theories, and how one would apply a certain ethics system to evaluate a certain situation, rather than the "agreed-upon shared moral values". Endless engineering fields before us have faced these problem before, and the principles apply just fine in Computer Science. I clearly haven't read/don't know enough about it, could you recommend some good introductory texts? I find things in this area to always devolve to the personal/private/corporate (in the sense of a group of people) freedom basic arguments. Would be great to read something that proposes something new.
      • yzmtf2008 9y ago
        I really recommend this series on ethics from Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-value-theory https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-val...
  • prewett 9y ago
    Personally, I think ethics mostly boils down to "I treat others like I want them to treat me." If you would not be okay with your washing machine repairman selling out you and your dissenting friends to the government, then you shouldn't be selling the knowledge. Yes, it is your decision, but it is not simply a decision of "do I whichever I want in the moment." It is ("do I want to do this & "would I be okay with someone doing this to me). (That's a bitwise AND there)
    • hardwaresofton 9y ago
      If they're like wayyyy out of what I deem to be understandable, I'll be outraged, but I don't know if I consider this company to be that far over my line (for the reasons I stated). If I considered this company to be over the line, what would I think about the leagues of developers who write essentially surveillance software (and somethings actually surveillance software) for the internet? Also, I think the way of thinking you're referring to is called universalism (roughly stated - "do a thing only if you're OK with everyone doing that thing"), but I think it has it's problems. > Yes, it is your decision, but it is not simply a decision of "do I whichever I want in the moment." It is ("do I want to do this & "would I be okay with someone doing this to me). (That's a bitwise AND there) Yeah that's basically integrity (at least the consistency part) though -- I don't agree with the example I gave (it's pretty devil's advocate-y and obviously against the mores of the HN crowd), but I don't know that I can call someone who draws the line a few steps away from where I might have drawn it "sleazy", especially when there are people out there that do way worse things in hidden places.
• Bartweiss 9y ago
  > how much more ethics training > medical community, or civil engineering, or aviation engineering, or physics or chemistry Honestly, I think this conflates two very different problems. If we're talking about Chris Wylie? Yeah, he built a thing that did real harm and said "I didn't think about the consequences, I just wanted to write the code." If people are disinterested in the harm they cause, or hiding behind "someone else would have", that's time for an ethics class. But GrayKey? Or Prism, XKeyscore, Echelon, or whatever else? There's no shortage of people who believe they are doing the moral thing with projects like this. GrayKey (supposedly) doesn't sell to everyone - they request data to approve buyers first. It's not hard to imagine the people behind it think the government should have this access and believe they're the ones doing the right thing. (And on the flipside, I'll bet some of the engineers on Greyball thought it was justified to fight harmful government regulation.) I don't think this is an isolated example. Psychology has a strong code of ethics and associated training, but the American Psychological Association helped the CIA design a torture program. British aviation engineers design fighters that end up sold to Saudi Arabia. Hell, civil engineers design prisons to support widespread solitary confinement and other treatment many people consider unethical. Either their ethics training isn't working, or the people doing this stuff consider their behavior ethical. There are programmers doing unethical things because they never thought about the consequences, or because they just don't care. But the focus on unethical software is rarely "somebody wrote ransomeware" - it's usually about controversial political applications. Calls for licensing and ethics training in the industry all too often look like an endrun around "what's moral?", attempting to settle moral disputes by treating disagreement as ignorance.
• logfromblammo 9y ago
  If I don't do it, the person who does should be less skilled than me, and working against my efforts to thwart them.