4 ms·

Personally, it should not negatively impact lives. For example, I can't see myself saying "I will take this job for the money, and the gun I help engineered is

Personally, it should not negatively impact lives. For example, I can't see myself saying "I will take this job for the money, and the gun I help engineered is used to kill humans during combat".

sokoloff 8y ago
I don't work in the field and don't know exactly how I'd personally feel about it, but I can see a very strong argument that even one of the most heinous weapons every deployed on Earth likely saved a net million-plus lives. If that is the case, is it moral to refuse to work on the Manhattan Project if asked? (I also agree that working on the next generation of the atomic bomb or the next revision of the M16/AK47 does not hold the same promise of saving lives, of course...)
- yitchelle 8y ago
  You are totally right, I am oversimplifying it. Do you know of any text, interviews or discussions with any of the scientists on the Manhattan project on the morality of their work?
  - blihp 8y ago
    It looks like this might be a good source: https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Framed like that, it's basically the trolley problem[0]. For which I don't think there's a good answer. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
  - manigandham 8y ago
    There is. It's a solved problem. The only issue is lack of info (many evil people vs 1 good) but most people get stuck because of a "no compromises" attitude and lack of will to make that decision. Modern society has already made the choice though. We sacrifice a few for the many all the time, and they are called heros and duly celebrated.
  - castlecrasher2 8y ago
    Thus the problem with the philosophical masturbation that goes on in threads like these; the moral busybodies come out of the woodwork to drop wisdom like "business should be about the betterment of humanity." I mean, sure, that would be great, but it's painfully vague.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  >One of the most heinous weapons every deployed on Earth likely saved a net million-plus lives. It's really an argument that can't be made because the other event never happened. The weapon killed people, that's it. I don't know if there's a moral side at all?
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    The projections for the invasion of Japan during WWII were that there would be millions of casualties. The battles in the Pacific were some of the most fiercely fought of the war, and invading Japan would have been even more so.
matz1 8y ago
Agree you should not work for something that is not align with your moral and personal believe, as for me I can totally see myself saying "I will take this job for the money, and the gun I help engineered is used to kill humans during combat".

Personally, it should not negatively impact lives. For example, I can't see myself saying "I will take this job for the money, and the gun I help engineered is used to kill humans during combat".

sokoloff 8y ago

I don't work in the field and don't know exactly how I'd personally feel about it, but I can see a very strong argument that even one of the most heinous weapons every deployed on Earth likely saved a net million-plus lives. If that is the case, is it moral to refuse to work on the Manhattan Project if asked? (I also agree that working on the next generation of the atomic bomb or the next revision of the M16/AK47 does not hold the same promise of saving lives, of course...)

yitchelle 8y ago
You are totally right, I am oversimplifying it. Do you know of any text, interviews or discussions with any of the scientists on the Manhattan project on the morality of their work?
- blihp 8y ago
  It looks like this might be a good source: https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories
wool_gather 8y ago
Framed like that, it's basically the trolley problem[0]. For which I don't think there's a good answer. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
- manigandham 8y ago
  There is. It's a solved problem. The only issue is lack of info (many evil people vs 1 good) but most people get stuck because of a "no compromises" attitude and lack of will to make that decision. Modern society has already made the choice though. We sacrifice a few for the many all the time, and they are called heros and duly celebrated.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  Thus the problem with the philosophical masturbation that goes on in threads like these; the moral busybodies come out of the woodwork to drop wisdom like "business should be about the betterment of humanity." I mean, sure, that would be great, but it's painfully vague.
prolikewh0a 8y ago
>One of the most heinous weapons every deployed on Earth likely saved a net million-plus lives. It's really an argument that can't be made because the other event never happened. The weapon killed people, that's it. I don't know if there's a moral side at all?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  The projections for the invasion of Japan during WWII were that there would be millions of casualties. The battles in the Pacific were some of the most fiercely fought of the war, and invading Japan would have been even more so.

matz1 8y ago

Agree you should not work for something that is not align with your moral and personal believe, as for me I can totally see myself saying "I will take this job for the money, and the gun I help engineered is used to kill humans during combat".