4 ms·

I’m not sure his solutions are sound. I don’t think you should violate your own morals, but the real issue isn’t that your code can be used for wrong doing, it’

I’m not sure his solutions are sound. I don’t think you should violate your own morals, but the real issue isn’t that your code can be used for wrong doing, it’s that there are no consequences when it is. I think weapons manufacturing is a better example than software, because it’s much clearer. Weapons are necessary to defend free society, and when they are misused, we hold the misusers to justice. Or at least we used to. Because today America is actively bombing civilians in 7 different countries, and no one is ever going to be held accountable for the outright human rights violation. I mean, it’s a war crime to kill civilians. I don’t think you can blame the weapons manufacturers for this though, and I don’t think we should have to. Because it’s our common ethics that should prevent it. I guess, though, that in a world without accountability, your individual morals is all that’s left, but it’s our ethics that need to change if we actually want change. Because if you personally refuse to write the software, someone else will. Like I said, I think you should absolutely refuse to write the software because you won’t be able to live with yourself, just don’t expect the violators to stop unless we stop them.

close04 8y ago
In your weapons example the problem is nobody will admit it’s a war crime. People will see it t their own way and to this point there’s no official legal consensus about what to call it. So this is left entirely to the morals of the individuals. This isn’t always the case. There are plenty of situations where legal barriers are put in place to prevent supplying abusive regimes (for example) with certain types of equipment, software, weapons, etc.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  The fact that no one will admit that it’s a war crime is exactly the point I’m making. How do you stop that with individual morals? I probably wouldn’t work in weapons manufacturing, just like I wouldn’t write spysoftware for the NSA, but a lot of people would. If our ethics as a society allow it, then our individual morals don’t really matter.
  - brewtide 8y ago
    Herd immoralization.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> I mean, it’s a war crime to kill civilians. Too broad a statement. Civilians can be killed. They can knowingly be killed, even deliberately killed in some circumstances. Civilian deaths can happen when one attacks military targets. Bombing a military airfield can kill civilians. The fact that a civilian cleaner or cook will be killed does not make the attack a war crime. This is very important from a human rights perspective. If the killing of civilians in war was always criminal, armies will surround themselves with civilians. So, ironically, the possible killing of civilians is necessary to prevent them becoming human shields. Remember too that the definition of "civilian" is complicated these days. Criminals are 'civilians' and a terrorist is a criminal. They may be an enemy combatant in bunker one day, and a civilian criminal defendant the next.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  That argument just doesn’t make a lot of sense when you’re bombing a school in Kenya. I mean, why were you bombing anyone in Kenya to begin with? Has Kenya attacked the US? I guess you could make a long line of explanations, but the war on terror is killing “combatants“ that weren’t even born in 2001. That’s just crazy.
  - albntomat0 8y ago
    Source? I did a good faith search to find it, and the closest I got was the 1998 bombings of the US embassies and an attack on a college by Al-Shabaab.
  - metildaa 8y ago
    These "combatants" are often non-combative, the logic our government here in the US uses to classify combatant purposefully mis-classifies a huge chunk of the populace.
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      Your government. Not mine. Not everyone here is american.
3pt14159 8y ago
Mistakes are going to happen and the world has changed. The battlefield is everywhere now. It's not good, but from a high level the US leading the world led to fewer combat deaths. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-yea... Note that that graph is logarithmic.
- unstuckdev 8y ago
  One country waging most of the wars and maiming instead of killing is not an improvement.
  - golergka 8y ago
    How is it not?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - vtange 8y ago
    It is an improvement considering the last time we had multiple powers we saw minor countries get carved up by major countries and the whole thing eventually flare up in a war that spanned continents, between major countries, and killed millions. Even the two power order of the Cold war just meant double the problems - the USSR had its fair share of adventures.
- whooshee 8y ago
  The reason that world has fewer full-fledged wars now is major powers have mutual assured destruction, US-leading doesn't come close as that.
  - 3pt14159 8y ago
    Very few countries have nukes and that is part of the US-leading thing. The MAD thing might work out for us, but it is too early to really tell. Might just be pushing the risk to the tails.
rtpg 8y ago
Even in weapons manufacturing there are “no go” weapons like around biological warfare where even the simple production is seen as bad. I am starting to feel like this makes sense in other domains (namely, facial recognition has almost only applications with bad side effects in practice)

close04 8y ago

In your weapons example the problem is nobody will admit it’s a war crime. People will see it t their own way and to this point there’s no official legal consensus about what to call it. So this is left entirely to the morals of the individuals. This isn’t always the case. There are plenty of situations where legal barriers are put in place to prevent supplying abusive regimes (for example) with certain types of equipment, software, weapons, etc.

eksemplar 8y ago
The fact that no one will admit that it’s a war crime is exactly the point I’m making. How do you stop that with individual morals? I probably wouldn’t work in weapons manufacturing, just like I wouldn’t write spysoftware for the NSA, but a lot of people would. If our ethics as a society allow it, then our individual morals don’t really matter.
- brewtide 8y ago
  Herd immoralization.

sandworm101 8y ago

>> I mean, it’s a war crime to kill civilians. Too broad a statement. Civilians can be killed. They can knowingly be killed, even deliberately killed in some circumstances. Civilian deaths can happen when one attacks military targets. Bombing a military airfield can kill civilians. The fact that a civilian cleaner or cook will be killed does not make the attack a war crime. This is very important from a human rights perspective. If the killing of civilians in war was always criminal, armies will surround themselves with civilians. So, ironically, the possible killing of civilians is necessary to prevent them becoming human shields. Remember too that the definition of "civilian" is complicated these days. Criminals are 'civilians' and a terrorist is a criminal. They may be an enemy combatant in bunker one day, and a civilian criminal defendant the next.

eksemplar 8y ago
That argument just doesn’t make a lot of sense when you’re bombing a school in Kenya. I mean, why were you bombing anyone in Kenya to begin with? Has Kenya attacked the US? I guess you could make a long line of explanations, but the war on terror is killing “combatants“ that weren’t even born in 2001. That’s just crazy.
- albntomat0 8y ago
  Source? I did a good faith search to find it, and the closest I got was the 1998 bombings of the US embassies and an attack on a college by Al-Shabaab.
- metildaa 8y ago
  These "combatants" are often non-combative, the logic our government here in the US uses to classify combatant purposefully mis-classifies a huge chunk of the populace.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Your government. Not mine. Not everyone here is american.

3pt14159 8y ago

Mistakes are going to happen and the world has changed. The battlefield is everywhere now. It's not good, but from a high level the US leading the world led to fewer combat deaths. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-yea... Note that that graph is logarithmic.

unstuckdev 8y ago
One country waging most of the wars and maiming instead of killing is not an improvement.
- golergka 8y ago
  How is it not?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- vtange 8y ago
  It is an improvement considering the last time we had multiple powers we saw minor countries get carved up by major countries and the whole thing eventually flare up in a war that spanned continents, between major countries, and killed millions. Even the two power order of the Cold war just meant double the problems - the USSR had its fair share of adventures.
whooshee 8y ago
The reason that world has fewer full-fledged wars now is major powers have mutual assured destruction, US-leading doesn't come close as that.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  Very few countries have nukes and that is part of the US-leading thing. The MAD thing might work out for us, but it is too early to really tell. Might just be pushing the risk to the tails.

rtpg 8y ago

Even in weapons manufacturing there are “no go” weapons like around biological warfare where even the simple production is seen as bad. I am starting to feel like this makes sense in other domains (namely, facial recognition has almost only applications with bad side effects in practice)