5 ms·

But you're clearly not doing what you can. You're just doing what's convenient. You still eat meat in one of the most important times not to eat meat (in front

But you're clearly not doing what you can. You're just doing what's convenient. You still eat meat in one of the most important times not to eat meat (in front of others) if you are truly driven by ethics for animals. You refuse to work on defense-funded projects because companies in your field have a pretend isolation mechanism (here's a hint: unless they are actually separate companies, they aren't isolated) that allows you to think you aren't supporting the military despite working for the company supporting the military. This type of behavior shocks idealists. Even though it's better than nothing, just doing little bits here and there where convenient actually makes it harder to change the status quo for idealists (because you think you're helping when you're not).

_vertigo 8y ago
Clearly he is rejecting the idealist viewpoint, so what does it matter if what he is saying “shocks idealists”?
- hueving 8y ago
  He asked "what's so hard to understand?" so I explained.
micheldlebeau 8y ago
Maybe the issue is with idealists, having a white or black view of the world, then?
Melkman 8y ago
Then, as an idealist, what do you expect from other people to reach your goal ? If 50% of the people do 80% of what is needed you're at 40% of your goal. If 10% of the people do 100% you're only at 10% plus you've turned your goal in to an "us vs them" instead of "everybody for the greater good". Voting with your wallet 80% of the time is a valid means to support what you think is right. An idealistic minority doesn't change the world. The majority does.
- grepsign 8y ago
  Exactly. I think a more CS way to think about it is shipping out a MVP vs. shipping out a 100% perfect, 100% feature complete, 100% bug free, 100% documented, product. I think everybody would be happy to start a project and ship out that 100% finished product, but you'll spend your entire life working on this and die without succeeding because it doesn't exist. So the choices are to 1) not bother, 2) do what you can (MVP), or 3) work until you die as a failure. OP would want me to choose 1 or 3, it seems.
- obelix_ 8y ago
  Well done. Great logic. The majority can also prop up a Kim Kardashian and Trump who met in the Whitehouse today and took a nice selfie. Those two idealists are taking your majority for great ride pal.
- hueving 8y ago
  Do the things that have a real impact. Choosing to work for a defense contractor with restrictions on projects gives them nearly as much benefit as without the restrictions. The fruits of your labor are still easily funneled into military projects and at a minimum they are keeping the company alive longer while serving the military. This isn't someone doing 80% of what's required. It's them doing active harm to a cause while continuing to take credit for pretending to help.
grepsign 8y ago
You're not wrong on the first statement. I am doing what's convenient. But I am also doing what I can with what's laid out in front of me. Basically every single company in my field has ties and contracts with military, so what, am I suppose to just change careers? I enjoy what I do, and I think military projects are neat in the technical sense, but that doesn't mean I want a part in it. I'm not an idealist. The world isn't black and white.
- extralego 8y ago
  >Am I supposed to just change You should absolutely change jobs if your current one is immoral, and careers if it comes to that. This much is obvious. The problem is in the hurdles making that difficult or unrealistic. In America, this process could leave you and your family homeless, maybe bankrupt if anything goes wrong. This fear leaves (maybe most) people in jobs they know to be immoral, and society is that much worse off because of it. I think you should be doing whatever you can do* to create a society in which people are not forced to act immorally, such as you have been.
- hueving 8y ago
  >so what, am I suppose to just change careers? Of course. If you like to make ice cream and the only organization employing people to make ice cream is the mafia, you stop making ice cream professionally.
TulliusCicero 8y ago
That kind of black and white thinking implies that the only moral way to live is as a monk, if you're ever spending money on say, a vacation or a new TV or eating out, well why don't you give that money to charity you monster?? You can believe that people have a moral obligation to do good, without believing that people have a moral obligation to maximize good in every aspect of their lives.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Most people don't jump from acting ethically to accepting work on that is obviously problematic. What actually happens is a long series of small, trivial compromises and other deviations that eventually become normalized[1]. Humans make mistakes; it isn't possible to live the "ideal monk" life. The real question is how small problems are handled? Compromising when the problem isn't a "big enough" ethical problem inevitably[2] pushes that boundary back in a cycle of normalized small, easily avoided deviances. Instead, if a hard line is taken against small problems when they are still small, a lot of larger problems can be avoided. [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_and_the_normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGLYEDpNu60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGLYEDpNu60
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    > Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Not seeing the distinction here. If you're an idealist the way hueving indicated and don't live as a monk, you're necessarily compromising on your values every day. And not on trivial or inconsequential things either, since you could easily donate to a variety of non-trivial causes. What you're suggesting just sounds like reflexive goalpost-moving: the compromises I make are okay, the compromises others make are not.
    - extralego 8y ago

_vertigo 8y ago

Clearly he is rejecting the idealist viewpoint, so what does it matter if what he is saying “shocks idealists”?

hueving 8y ago
He asked "what's so hard to understand?" so I explained.

micheldlebeau 8y ago

Maybe the issue is with idealists, having a white or black view of the world, then?

Melkman 8y ago

Then, as an idealist, what do you expect from other people to reach your goal ? If 50% of the people do 80% of what is needed you're at 40% of your goal. If 10% of the people do 100% you're only at 10% plus you've turned your goal in to an "us vs them" instead of "everybody for the greater good". Voting with your wallet 80% of the time is a valid means to support what you think is right. An idealistic minority doesn't change the world. The majority does.

grepsign 8y ago
Exactly. I think a more CS way to think about it is shipping out a MVP vs. shipping out a 100% perfect, 100% feature complete, 100% bug free, 100% documented, product. I think everybody would be happy to start a project and ship out that 100% finished product, but you'll spend your entire life working on this and die without succeeding because it doesn't exist. So the choices are to 1) not bother, 2) do what you can (MVP), or 3) work until you die as a failure. OP would want me to choose 1 or 3, it seems.
obelix_ 8y ago
Well done. Great logic. The majority can also prop up a Kim Kardashian and Trump who met in the Whitehouse today and took a nice selfie. Those two idealists are taking your majority for great ride pal.
hueving 8y ago
Do the things that have a real impact. Choosing to work for a defense contractor with restrictions on projects gives them nearly as much benefit as without the restrictions. The fruits of your labor are still easily funneled into military projects and at a minimum they are keeping the company alive longer while serving the military. This isn't someone doing 80% of what's required. It's them doing active harm to a cause while continuing to take credit for pretending to help.

grepsign 8y ago

You're not wrong on the first statement. I am doing what's convenient. But I am also doing what I can with what's laid out in front of me. Basically every single company in my field has ties and contracts with military, so what, am I suppose to just change careers? I enjoy what I do, and I think military projects are neat in the technical sense, but that doesn't mean I want a part in it. I'm not an idealist. The world isn't black and white.

extralego 8y ago
>Am I supposed to just change You should absolutely change jobs if your current one is immoral, and careers if it comes to that. This much is obvious. The problem is in the hurdles making that difficult or unrealistic. In America, this process could leave you and your family homeless, maybe bankrupt if anything goes wrong. This fear leaves (maybe most) people in jobs they know to be immoral, and society is that much worse off because of it. I think you should be doing whatever you can do* to create a society in which people are not forced to act immorally, such as you have been.
hueving 8y ago
>so what, am I suppose to just change careers? Of course. If you like to make ice cream and the only organization employing people to make ice cream is the mafia, you stop making ice cream professionally.

TulliusCicero 8y ago

That kind of black and white thinking implies that the only moral way to live is as a monk, if you're ever spending money on say, a vacation or a new TV or eating out, well why don't you give that money to charity you monster?? You can believe that people have a moral obligation to do good, without believing that people have a moral obligation to maximize good in every aspect of their lives.

pdkl95 8y ago
Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Most people don't jump from acting ethically to accepting work on that is obviously problematic. What actually happens is a long series of small, trivial compromises and other deviations that eventually become normalized[1]. Humans make mistakes; it isn't possible to live the "ideal monk" life. The real question is how small problems are handled? Compromising when the problem isn't a "big enough" ethical problem inevitably[2] pushes that boundary back in a cycle of normalized small, easily avoided deviances. Instead, if a hard line is taken against small problems when they are still small, a lot of larger problems can be avoided. [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_and_the_normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGLYEDpNu60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGLYEDpNu60
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > Idealism isn't about living as a monk, it's about not compromising on the things that are often seen as "trivial" or "inconsequential". Not seeing the distinction here. If you're an idealist the way hueving indicated and don't live as a monk, you're necessarily compromising on your values every day. And not on trivial or inconsequential things either, since you could easily donate to a variety of non-trivial causes. What you're suggesting just sounds like reflexive goalpost-moving: the compromises I make are okay, the compromises others make are not.
  - extralego 8y ago