3 ms·

There will always be someone who can find a moral reason that such systems need to exist. Engineers build weapons, after all.

fao_ 8y ago
But see, I can understand weapons building. The motivation is protective towards one's society, and that is the intended result, even if that might not be the actual case. Whereas the intention of building an oppressive system such as the one described above is, what, selfishness? Laziness? Programmers, because of the high-demand nature of our role, do not tend to be subject to the usual financial pressures that other communities are. I'm not sure what would motivate someone to build such a system as opposed to walking and finding a better job offer.
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  > But see, I can understand weapons building. This is my point. Eventually someone will come in and say the system in the OP was necessary for the company to stay afloat, pay its employees or retain value for its retired shareholders.
  - chrismcb 8y ago
    There is a difference between defending your nation and defending your country. But in this particular case, some of the things described are actually illegal. While building a weapon is not necessarily illegal. Ignoring the ethical implications.
    - krageon 8y ago
      There is not really all that much difference. Weapons are used to terrorise and murder people. What this person wrote will give some humans stress but it will never cause physical harm. That you think one is justified and the other is not has very little to do with their relative harm, which is by no means a solved problem or a given. It has to do with your view of it, and those views will differ between different people.
- joewee 8y ago
  I’ve always looked at these systems as “if someone else built this, it would be worse.” Doesn’t the same moral conundrum exist anytime you build a system that dehumanizes people for profit. Ad networks? Drug trials?
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    Ad networks - people can just disconnect or look away if they like. Drug trials have benefit to society. I would argue that creating a system to fire people in an automated fashion when they take too many bathroom breaks like this is morally worse than both of those systems you mentioned.
- derefr 8y ago
  Not saying this was likely, but one potential reason could be a kind of selfless penny-pinching. Say you have a call center run as a co-op. You’ve got workers and HR people. Both the workers and HR people are shareholders. If you can eliminate the HR people, then the workers can each have a larger proportionate share for the same work. Automating HR eliminates the HR people.
  - hndamien 8y ago
    Is Uber so different?
  - chrismcb 8y ago
    Automating a job is one thing. Some people may consider it unethical. But it is going to happen. But writing coffee to terrorize people is something else.
- s3krit 8y ago
  >But see, I can understand weapons building. The motivation is protective towards one's society, and that is the intended result, even if that might not be the actual case. Not really. If you work for Raytheon, you are supporting a company that sells arms to the following countries: https://www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/global https://www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/global Northrop Grumman have a list of their worldwide presence here: https://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/OurGlobalPresence/Pages/default.aspx https://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/OurGlobalPresence/Pa... If you work for a defense contractor, you are not 'protecting your society' - that's not even the intent. The intent is to make money by selling tools designed to kill other human beings.
- Noumenon72 8y ago
  It enables cooperation. Human nature is such that it's hard to keep working hard when others slack, you feel taken advantage of and a fool. This way, you know everyone's doing their part. It creates jobs. A lot of people don't have the self-control to keep from taking longer and longer breaks, either costing the company money or getting fired. Some jobs pay more to hire people that do have this self-control, but there are only so many of those people. This creates a business model that works when supplied only with the lazier employees who are left. Another system like this is the timeclock. It's a tyrant and getting out of bed on time every morning is the hardest thing I've ever had to do, but there's just no way to run a factory without it.
King-Aaron 8y ago
There will also always be someone else to do the work if you don't. Some people just like to eat.
- fao_ 8y ago
  Just because someone is willing to, say, torture a rat, I should be the one to do it? That's a non-sequitur.
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    I feel this is akin to strawman logic. However using that as an example, there are people who work as vermin exterminators, or people who work in labs that have to euthanise lab mice. They probably don't enjoy it, but when there's a need for something you'll find someone to do it.
    - fao_ 8y ago
      It's not a straw-man, because it's using your literal point. I can't get any closer to your argument than that. > However using that as an example, there are people who work as vermin exterminators, or people who work in labs that have to euthanise lab mice. They probably don't enjoy it, but when there's a need for something you'll find someone to do it. Yes, but that does not serve as a reason why I should be the one to do it (instead of them), that only postulates that there are other people out there to do it, which is an irrelevant point.

fao_ 8y ago

But see, I can understand weapons building. The motivation is protective towards one's society, and that is the intended result, even if that might not be the actual case. Whereas the intention of building an oppressive system such as the one described above is, what, selfishness? Laziness? Programmers, because of the high-demand nature of our role, do not tend to be subject to the usual financial pressures that other communities are. I'm not sure what would motivate someone to build such a system as opposed to walking and finding a better job offer.

fucking_tragedy 8y ago
> But see, I can understand weapons building. This is my point. Eventually someone will come in and say the system in the OP was necessary for the company to stay afloat, pay its employees or retain value for its retired shareholders.
- chrismcb 8y ago
  There is a difference between defending your nation and defending your country. But in this particular case, some of the things described are actually illegal. While building a weapon is not necessarily illegal. Ignoring the ethical implications.
  - krageon 8y ago
    There is not really all that much difference. Weapons are used to terrorise and murder people. What this person wrote will give some humans stress but it will never cause physical harm. That you think one is justified and the other is not has very little to do with their relative harm, which is by no means a solved problem or a given. It has to do with your view of it, and those views will differ between different people.
joewee 8y ago
I’ve always looked at these systems as “if someone else built this, it would be worse.” Doesn’t the same moral conundrum exist anytime you build a system that dehumanizes people for profit. Ad networks? Drug trials?
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  Ad networks - people can just disconnect or look away if they like. Drug trials have benefit to society. I would argue that creating a system to fire people in an automated fashion when they take too many bathroom breaks like this is morally worse than both of those systems you mentioned.
derefr 8y ago
Not saying this was likely, but one potential reason could be a kind of selfless penny-pinching. Say you have a call center run as a co-op. You’ve got workers and HR people. Both the workers and HR people are shareholders. If you can eliminate the HR people, then the workers can each have a larger proportionate share for the same work. Automating HR eliminates the HR people.
- hndamien 8y ago
  Is Uber so different?
- chrismcb 8y ago
  Automating a job is one thing. Some people may consider it unethical. But it is going to happen. But writing coffee to terrorize people is something else.
s3krit 8y ago
>But see, I can understand weapons building. The motivation is protective towards one's society, and that is the intended result, even if that might not be the actual case. Not really. If you work for Raytheon, you are supporting a company that sells arms to the following countries: https://www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/global https://www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/global Northrop Grumman have a list of their worldwide presence here: https://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/OurGlobalPresence/Pages/default.aspx https://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/OurGlobalPresence/Pa... If you work for a defense contractor, you are not 'protecting your society' - that's not even the intent. The intent is to make money by selling tools designed to kill other human beings.
Noumenon72 8y ago
It enables cooperation. Human nature is such that it's hard to keep working hard when others slack, you feel taken advantage of and a fool. This way, you know everyone's doing their part. It creates jobs. A lot of people don't have the self-control to keep from taking longer and longer breaks, either costing the company money or getting fired. Some jobs pay more to hire people that do have this self-control, but there are only so many of those people. This creates a business model that works when supplied only with the lazier employees who are left. Another system like this is the timeclock. It's a tyrant and getting out of bed on time every morning is the hardest thing I've ever had to do, but there's just no way to run a factory without it.

King-Aaron 8y ago

There will also always be someone else to do the work if you don't. Some people just like to eat.

fao_ 8y ago
Just because someone is willing to, say, torture a rat, I should be the one to do it? That's a non-sequitur.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  I feel this is akin to strawman logic. However using that as an example, there are people who work as vermin exterminators, or people who work in labs that have to euthanise lab mice. They probably don't enjoy it, but when there's a need for something you'll find someone to do it.
  - fao_ 8y ago
    It's not a straw-man, because it's using your literal point. I can't get any closer to your argument than that. > However using that as an example, there are people who work as vermin exterminators, or people who work in labs that have to euthanise lab mice. They probably don't enjoy it, but when there's a need for something you'll find someone to do it. Yes, but that does not serve as a reason why I should be the one to do it (instead of them), that only postulates that there are other people out there to do it, which is an irrelevant point.