9 ms·

I've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethica

I've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? Maybe you won't do this but be sure that in some other country some similarly talented people will. If you (and many others) abstain from it on similar basis you and closest people you know may be in danger of being affected by more advanced military equipment other (possibly hostile) armies can get. Maybe it's just not in people heads that world and homeland safety is not given for free and granted forever.

sp332 8y ago
It's a moral point. Maybe I'd rather be dead than kill someone.
- 6ue7nNMEEbHcM 8y ago
  Is it still moral if by your decision not only you but many other people die?
  - quakenul 8y ago
    Is it okay to not torture someone, if by doing so other people might die? Is it okay to not (legally or illegally) surveil a people, if that might result in physical harm to them? How much does the chance of missing out on action x to (maybe) defer undesirable outcome y weight against the mere consequences of pursuing action x in the first place? You tell me and then I'll tell you. It is a question of morality and as such has an infinite number of right and wrong answers.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      If we are in peaceful state, then it isn't. If we are in state of war, then it may be okay (it depends). My turn: when war starts, is it okay to send someone else to die at war to protect your children? Or it better to let your children die, but save soldier lives instead? http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/ http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/
      - quakenul 8y ago
        The answer can be both or neither, or an variable amount of "to approach an (as in 'one possible') answer let's get a whole lot more specific" That is the essence or morality (at least to me). Very interesting link, thanks for sharing! :)
  - ionised 8y ago
    Yes.
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  Doubt that to be honest. In theory maybe, but in a real life scenario I don't think there are many people who let themself (and their loved ones) to be killed than to kill. Even though I have a lot of respect for Ghandi, I am not sure if I could respect someone who would let his family murdered, out of a moral point.
  - sp332 8y ago
    Here's how I see it: I'm not going to be held accountable for someone else's actions. I'm going to be held accountable for my actions. I'm not going to plan ahead to make it easier to kill someone in some as-yet hypothetical self-defense scenario.
    - hutzlibu 8y ago
      "I'm not going to be held accountable for someone else's actions" I agree, you are not. You are responsible for your own actions. So if you choose a life of non-violence - that is allright and it allways depends on the real situation, so I am not saying you should buy a gun. Because there is also this old proverb "Live by the sword, die by the sword" meaning I guess you also think that the more someone spends energy with something - like preparing to shoot someone for self-defense - the more likely it is, that he will have to do it at some point, so you just completely refuse it. Well, there is some truth to it, but on the other hand - I for example train martial arts since I am young, but I never had to use it for real - even though there were many situations where I was glad, that I could - I never had to back off in critical situations. The knowledge that I could probably beat the aggressor, gave me the confidence to defuse the situtation calmly. My point is, you should be aware, that there are indeed many bad persons around and if you choose the path of non-violence than you will have to rely on other people to protect you. And even if you never encountered violence, than this will just mean that those protectors (usually police) did allready a good job of keeping the violence away from you.
    - afpx 8y ago
      Do you think that safety is possible without funding police, justice systems, defense, etc.?
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  What about your children?
bradleyjg 8y ago
One needn’t make a decision that would stand up in all times and all places. It’s perfectly reasonable to take a stand based on the current circumstances in particular country.
- maroonblazer 8y ago
  Agree, not all times and places. But it's not like you can flip a switch and suddenly have all the technology you need when your quality of life is in imminent danger.
  - bradleyjg 8y ago
    To make it concrete, currently the US spends more than the next ten countries combined on its military and associated projects and has done so since at least the end of the Cold War. It has far and away the most ships, planes, missiles and bombs. While it doesn’t have the most troops the two countries with more troops do not nearly have the same as much training or as good equipment. Presuming the OP is in the US, and in light of the above, it seems perverse to suggest that his refusal to work on military projects is endangering his loved ones.
    - 086421357909764 8y ago
      Everyone seems to forget that the projection of might in of itself is a deterrent leveraged by all nations. Further, the US is part of multi nation programs, such as NATO in which it's the largest supplier of Capital and Manpower by a large margin. Most of the countries external to the US that bring up this argument, are happily accepting Military and in some instances Economic Aide. You can't look at the % of spending / annual cost of the greatest military power without taking into account it's responsibilities around the globe. Nothing above says you have to agree or disagree with the military, in fact many of us aren't pro on a lot of their actions, but this common retort as posted above, is selective data analysis, which I would hope the intellectuals of HN would be able to separate emotions from facts. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/08/fact-sheet-us-contributions-nato-capabilities https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/0... https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection
lazysheepherd 8y ago
This _is_ a very valuable action logically let alone morally. In the next decades either we resolve to mitigate this "us or them" mentality on this earth, or pure physics and math will resolve to see the end of the civilization as we know it. Google is a US company yes, but with so many engineers from all over the world and customers from every corner of the world, who is "them" for a Google employee really? And before you say so, I know this is how things(power dynamics, etc.) work today. That is exactly why this kind of movement towards a change is good and needed.
- menacingly 8y ago
  For Google, "Us" is the government that could in a pinch just grab the damned technology and leave them with next to no recourse, and "Them" is the governments who can't. Hopefully, if you're choosing to work for a company, you understand that you're at least implicitly adopting those definitions, and that you may find the licensing requirements of your work hastily restructured in an emergency situation.
  - lazysheepherd 8y ago
    I do not claim scenario you proposed is not likely, but submitting to what harms you will only increase the harm and abuse over time. Standing against will make it less and less likely, over a long period of time. It is just like the fear of darkness. As long as you avoid the darkness, your fear will escalate. I acknowledge that the safest condition for me, my loved ones and next generations is not the one which has draconian governments, one-button-away nuclear war and killer drones.
- sdenton4 8y ago
  Lemme just underline this. Google engineers come from all over the world, and Google products are built to serve people all over the world. The Googlers opposed to Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better. Preemptive lazy answers for lazy replies: Companies only exist to increase stockholder value: Some of us hold ourselves to a higher standard. Improved drone efficiency is better for everyone: hahahaha.
protonimitate 8y ago
I haven't had to accept/reject any form of military contract so this is all theoretical - but my biggest issue wouldn't be assisting the military, it would be not having transparency into what my contributions were being used for. If I could write software that actually helps our military without hurting others, I would be perfectly fine with that. My fear is that you would be given a black box problem that could be used however they see fit. But, I also wouldn't join the military for the same reasons. I would be more than willing to assist and help, but do not want to be put in a position where I have to take, or contribute, to taking some one else's life. However, for every one person like me or you, there are plenty of people who sign up eagerly to do just that.
hutzlibu 8y ago
"Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? .... Maybe it's just not in people heads that world and homeland safety is not given for free and granted forever." Well unfortunately most armys today (and especially your US-Forces) are not really "defensive" armys. Despite they all hypocritely call themself that. They are mostly very offensive conquering ones. Where is the connection again to homeland safety, when you invaded Iraq, Libya, Syria...? It is simply about dominance. So sure you can say, it is for world peace - all accept our empire and we will have peace. But that is not really my definition of peace nor freedom. (and not a working one, with so many other wannabe nuclear empires around) I was also not in the military because of that. I would defend germany in germany, but not in Afghanistan. But when you join the military or work for them - you can't really choose only for the defense part. This would only be possible if we would have only armys for defending (so in switzerland I probably would have served). And about real international peace-keeping missions, to protect against genocide etc. - well, that is a different story. UN-Troops are an option, even they got used for dominance and powerplay as well and lost credibility because of it. But when a nations army goes into a different country to fight a war - it is allmost allways about dominance.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mtgx 8y ago
At some point someone has to take a stand against all the objectively evil/bad actions the U.S. military is taking every day abroad. Maybe when enough people do it, the U.S. leaders will have a more reasonable approach to foreign policy/invading other countries.
rayiner 8y ago
It's ironic on so many levels. The first level is, of course, the irony of refusing to do military work at a company that only exists because of defense contractors working on a military project (ARPANET). More generally, the irony is that the U.S. military has made a far greater positive contribution to the world than Google. Under the Pax Americana, we have seen the greatest number of people rise out of abject poverty in human history. The stable, liberal world order that has been beneficial to so many people has been bankrolled by the U.S. and backed by the U.S. military. This world where people in India and Pakistan are using Gchat Facebook to talk to each other instead of waging nuclear war against each other is not the result of Google or Facebook. It's not the result of humans evolving beyond their tendencies towards warfare. It's because the U.S. military has made entire classes of armed conflicts untenable.
- SauciestGNU 8y ago
  What does the American military have to do with the economic development of, for instance, China? I'm not sure America should be credited for its adversaries' successful pushes to mitigate poverty.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    China's recent economic development is the result of unprecedented levels of trade in an unprecedentedly peaceful world. That peace, in turn, is the direct result of U.S. efforts to maintain international stability, through the use or threat of military force.
    - robin_reala 8y ago
      [citation needed]
    - pofilat 8y ago
      China is far more stable than the US.
      - killjoywashere 8y ago
ska 8y ago
Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? What should you do if you support the ethics of self-defense aspects, but do not believe that [your countries] military is acting ethically? What is your morally consistent path? Other than voting, which is part of it. This is a very old form of the argument you are putting forward, and while I can see how people will take it to inform their morals, it's also easy to see reasonable versions that reject it.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  Move to a different country, where you feel the history and current administration more closely align with your worldview. Voting with your feet is the best way to do so - especially if you feel you have the skills to do it.
  - ska 8y ago
    That is also an old argument, but has fairly obvious weaknesses. We are talking about morals here, after all. It can be the most rational path for you to work towards improving [in your mind] how things work where you are. My question was genuine, by the way. I don't have the answers to any of this. I do distrust moral arguments that seem naive or overly simplistic.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Why should you move to a different country? It's yours and you have every right to be there, and every right to complain about and protest things you don't like.
    - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
      Of course, but if you don't believe in what the government is doing then why would you support it, and the community you live in, with your taxes or your additions to the GDP?
      - pofilat 8y ago

sp332 8y ago

It's a moral point. Maybe I'd rather be dead than kill someone.

6ue7nNMEEbHcM 8y ago
Is it still moral if by your decision not only you but many other people die?
- quakenul 8y ago
  Is it okay to not torture someone, if by doing so other people might die? Is it okay to not (legally or illegally) surveil a people, if that might result in physical harm to them? How much does the chance of missing out on action x to (maybe) defer undesirable outcome y weight against the mere consequences of pursuing action x in the first place? You tell me and then I'll tell you. It is a question of morality and as such has an infinite number of right and wrong answers.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    If we are in peaceful state, then it isn't. If we are in state of war, then it may be okay (it depends). My turn: when war starts, is it okay to send someone else to die at war to protect your children? Or it better to let your children die, but save soldier lives instead? http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/ http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/
    - quakenul 8y ago
      The answer can be both or neither, or an variable amount of "to approach an (as in 'one possible') answer let's get a whole lot more specific" That is the essence or morality (at least to me). Very interesting link, thanks for sharing! :)
- ionised 8y ago
  Yes.
hutzlibu 8y ago
Doubt that to be honest. In theory maybe, but in a real life scenario I don't think there are many people who let themself (and their loved ones) to be killed than to kill. Even though I have a lot of respect for Ghandi, I am not sure if I could respect someone who would let his family murdered, out of a moral point.
- sp332 8y ago
  Here's how I see it: I'm not going to be held accountable for someone else's actions. I'm going to be held accountable for my actions. I'm not going to plan ahead to make it easier to kill someone in some as-yet hypothetical self-defense scenario.
  - hutzlibu 8y ago
    "I'm not going to be held accountable for someone else's actions" I agree, you are not. You are responsible for your own actions. So if you choose a life of non-violence - that is allright and it allways depends on the real situation, so I am not saying you should buy a gun. Because there is also this old proverb "Live by the sword, die by the sword" meaning I guess you also think that the more someone spends energy with something - like preparing to shoot someone for self-defense - the more likely it is, that he will have to do it at some point, so you just completely refuse it. Well, there is some truth to it, but on the other hand - I for example train martial arts since I am young, but I never had to use it for real - even though there were many situations where I was glad, that I could - I never had to back off in critical situations. The knowledge that I could probably beat the aggressor, gave me the confidence to defuse the situtation calmly. My point is, you should be aware, that there are indeed many bad persons around and if you choose the path of non-violence than you will have to rely on other people to protect you. And even if you never encountered violence, than this will just mean that those protectors (usually police) did allready a good job of keeping the violence away from you.
  - afpx 8y ago
    Do you think that safety is possible without funding police, justice systems, defense, etc.?
v_lisivka 8y ago
What about your children?

bradleyjg 8y ago

One needn’t make a decision that would stand up in all times and all places. It’s perfectly reasonable to take a stand based on the current circumstances in particular country.

maroonblazer 8y ago
Agree, not all times and places. But it's not like you can flip a switch and suddenly have all the technology you need when your quality of life is in imminent danger.
- bradleyjg 8y ago
  To make it concrete, currently the US spends more than the next ten countries combined on its military and associated projects and has done so since at least the end of the Cold War. It has far and away the most ships, planes, missiles and bombs. While it doesn’t have the most troops the two countries with more troops do not nearly have the same as much training or as good equipment. Presuming the OP is in the US, and in light of the above, it seems perverse to suggest that his refusal to work on military projects is endangering his loved ones.
  - 086421357909764 8y ago
    Everyone seems to forget that the projection of might in of itself is a deterrent leveraged by all nations. Further, the US is part of multi nation programs, such as NATO in which it's the largest supplier of Capital and Manpower by a large margin. Most of the countries external to the US that bring up this argument, are happily accepting Military and in some instances Economic Aide. You can't look at the % of spending / annual cost of the greatest military power without taking into account it's responsibilities around the globe. Nothing above says you have to agree or disagree with the military, in fact many of us aren't pro on a lot of their actions, but this common retort as posted above, is selective data analysis, which I would hope the intellectuals of HN would be able to separate emotions from facts. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/08/fact-sheet-us-contributions-nato-capabilities https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/0... https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_aid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

lazysheepherd 8y ago

This _is_ a very valuable action logically let alone morally. In the next decades either we resolve to mitigate this "us or them" mentality on this earth, or pure physics and math will resolve to see the end of the civilization as we know it. Google is a US company yes, but with so many engineers from all over the world and customers from every corner of the world, who is "them" for a Google employee really? And before you say so, I know this is how things(power dynamics, etc.) work today. That is exactly why this kind of movement towards a change is good and needed.

menacingly 8y ago
For Google, "Us" is the government that could in a pinch just grab the damned technology and leave them with next to no recourse, and "Them" is the governments who can't. Hopefully, if you're choosing to work for a company, you understand that you're at least implicitly adopting those definitions, and that you may find the licensing requirements of your work hastily restructured in an emergency situation.
- lazysheepherd 8y ago
  I do not claim scenario you proposed is not likely, but submitting to what harms you will only increase the harm and abuse over time. Standing against will make it less and less likely, over a long period of time. It is just like the fear of darkness. As long as you avoid the darkness, your fear will escalate. I acknowledge that the safest condition for me, my loved ones and next generations is not the one which has draconian governments, one-button-away nuclear war and killer drones.
sdenton4 8y ago
Lemme just underline this. Google engineers come from all over the world, and Google products are built to serve people all over the world. The Googlers opposed to Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better. Preemptive lazy answers for lazy replies: Companies only exist to increase stockholder value: Some of us hold ourselves to a higher standard. Improved drone efficiency is better for everyone: hahahaha.

protonimitate 8y ago

I haven't had to accept/reject any form of military contract so this is all theoretical - but my biggest issue wouldn't be assisting the military, it would be not having transparency into what my contributions were being used for. If I could write software that actually helps our military without hurting others, I would be perfectly fine with that. My fear is that you would be given a black box problem that could be used however they see fit. But, I also wouldn't join the military for the same reasons. I would be more than willing to assist and help, but do not want to be put in a position where I have to take, or contribute, to taking some one else's life. However, for every one person like me or you, there are plenty of people who sign up eagerly to do just that.

hutzlibu 8y ago

"Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? .... Maybe it's just not in people heads that world and homeland safety is not given for free and granted forever." Well unfortunately most armys today (and especially your US-Forces) are not really "defensive" armys. Despite they all hypocritely call themself that. They are mostly very offensive conquering ones. Where is the connection again to homeland safety, when you invaded Iraq, Libya, Syria...? It is simply about dominance. So sure you can say, it is for world peace - all accept our empire and we will have peace. But that is not really my definition of peace nor freedom. (and not a working one, with so many other wannabe nuclear empires around) I was also not in the military because of that. I would defend germany in germany, but not in Afghanistan. But when you join the military or work for them - you can't really choose only for the defense part. This would only be possible if we would have only armys for defending (so in switzerland I probably would have served). And about real international peace-keeping missions, to protect against genocide etc. - well, that is a different story. UN-Troops are an option, even they got used for dominance and powerplay as well and lost credibility because of it. But when a nations army goes into a different country to fight a war - it is allmost allways about dominance.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mtgx 8y ago

At some point someone has to take a stand against all the objectively evil/bad actions the U.S. military is taking every day abroad. Maybe when enough people do it, the U.S. leaders will have a more reasonable approach to foreign policy/invading other countries.

rayiner 8y ago

It's ironic on so many levels. The first level is, of course, the irony of refusing to do military work at a company that only exists because of defense contractors working on a military project (ARPANET). More generally, the irony is that the U.S. military has made a far greater positive contribution to the world than Google. Under the Pax Americana, we have seen the greatest number of people rise out of abject poverty in human history. The stable, liberal world order that has been beneficial to so many people has been bankrolled by the U.S. and backed by the U.S. military. This world where people in India and Pakistan are using Gchat Facebook to talk to each other instead of waging nuclear war against each other is not the result of Google or Facebook. It's not the result of humans evolving beyond their tendencies towards warfare. It's because the U.S. military has made entire classes of armed conflicts untenable.

SauciestGNU 8y ago
What does the American military have to do with the economic development of, for instance, China? I'm not sure America should be credited for its adversaries' successful pushes to mitigate poverty.
- rayiner 8y ago
  China's recent economic development is the result of unprecedented levels of trade in an unprecedentedly peaceful world. That peace, in turn, is the direct result of U.S. efforts to maintain international stability, through the use or threat of military force.
  - robin_reala 8y ago
    [citation needed]
  - pofilat 8y ago
    China is far more stable than the US.
    - killjoywashere 8y ago

ska 8y ago

Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? What should you do if you support the ethics of self-defense aspects, but do not believe that [your countries] military is acting ethically? What is your morally consistent path? Other than voting, which is part of it. This is a very old form of the argument you are putting forward, and while I can see how people will take it to inform their morals, it's also easy to see reasonable versions that reject it.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Move to a different country, where you feel the history and current administration more closely align with your worldview. Voting with your feet is the best way to do so - especially if you feel you have the skills to do it.
- ska 8y ago
  That is also an old argument, but has fairly obvious weaknesses. We are talking about morals here, after all. It can be the most rational path for you to work towards improving [in your mind] how things work where you are. My question was genuine, by the way. I don't have the answers to any of this. I do distrust moral arguments that seem naive or overly simplistic.
- ionised 8y ago
  Why should you move to a different country? It's yours and you have every right to be there, and every right to complain about and protest things you don't like.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    Of course, but if you don't believe in what the government is doing then why would you support it, and the community you live in, with your taxes or your additions to the GDP?
    - pofilat 8y ago