4 ms·

> How would you like people to square this with providing for their families? With a capable human brain, like we all have! Just because a decision is hard doe

by drb91 8y ago

> How would you like people to square this with providing for their families? With a capable human brain, like we all have! Just because a decision is hard doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to make the right one—all people making decisions have been faced with this, including many people commonly considered evil. Computers are levers, and developers are the fulcrum. We have quite a bit of negotiation power. Finally, I think it’s naive to think that these systemic problems can be addressed with concerted individual effort, not by addressing the underlying problems. Maybe I have some sympathy for the coal miners after all.

jimktrains2 8y ago
You're still begging the question. How does one choose between doing something supports a questionably moral company (and what isn't a company without any moral baggage?) and keeping your family fed and warm? > Just because a decision is hard doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to make the right [choice] I think this is telling: you believe there is a correct choice in all situations, from all points of view. I have no problems installing Google Analytics or AdWords on a site if my employer asks me to, but I personally run with ad blockers. The "right" decision in my case is to keep my family fed and warm because I don't think I can find a position at a company that doesn't do advertising or analytics and my own attempts to start my own companies have failed. I'm not willing to take the risk of long-term unemployment or to take a significantly lower paying job at a company that does the exact same thing (e.g. advertising). So please tell me why my decision is unequivocally wrong, especially in light of the ability of anyone to run an adblocker and that we adhere to all relevant regulations, e.g. GDPR. Additionally, please tell me where I (and everyone who doesn't like advertising) can find a living wage from a company that does not advertise or perform analytics (or do any other morally questionable activity).
- drb91 8y ago
  The decisions we make in life, and our difficulty making them, defines us. I can’t help you define your morality here.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    You're still begging the question and acting like there is a fixed morality.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Nobody is begging any question. The answer is that it is for YOU to decide. I'm sorry if that's not a simple, yes/no answer for you, but the world isn't like that.
      - jimktrains2 8y ago
        I'm really at a loss to understand your reply. My original question was "How would you like people to square [being accountable for the actions of their employer] with providing for their families?" You've yet to say anything except implying that there is a single, black-and-white moral compass that everyone is capable of following in its entirety. There are no employers that have no moral shortcomings. Telling people that they're immoral for not destitute themselves is rather pointless and leads to a nowhere discussion because it started nowhere. Moreover, it's a fairly pointless expectation that everyone is I don't know what country you live in, but I can ask with certainty the same with respect to citizenship: How can you be a citizen of a country that's perpetrated atrocities. In that case, it's even more clear that there is no option -- there is no country that hasn't committed atrocities.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "My original question was "How would you like people to square [being accountable for the actions of their employer] with providing for their families?"" And the answer to that is, "It is up to those people to decide that. No one else can do it for them." "You've yet to say anything except implying that there is a single, black-and-white moral compass that everyone is capable of following in its entirety. " Wrong. Nobody but you has done that. You are the one demanding answers for how people square these things."
    - rhizome 8y ago
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  >>You're still begging the question. How does one choose between doing something supports a questionably moral company (and what isn't a company without any moral baggage?) and keeping your family fed and warm? It all comes down to a very simple (although fundamental) question about your morality and character: do you believe ends justify the means?
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    > It all comes down to a very simple (although fundamental) question about your morality and character: do you believe ends justify the means? It's also a question of morality: I obviously don't believe that all morally distasteful things are equal. AdWords is significantly less disasteful than my family starving. I would bet that most people, probably even including you, find driving much less distastful than going without or moving to an area with and using public transit, even though it's significantly more efficient. Since moving out on my own, I've purposely have always lived on good transit lines and fight for better transit. I would bet that most people, probably even including you, are OK purchasing cheap, foreign made items without a thought to the working conditions and environmental conditions that purchase is helping to enforce. I specifically seek out items made in countries with environmental regulations at least as strong as the US'. I would bet that most people, probably even including you, are OK purchasing food raised in unsustainable ways, or that is significantly out of season. I became vegetarian and strive to buy as much as I can from local farms. These are much more important to me than if I install an AdWords script on a website that's trivially easy to block by the end user. Do I wish I could convince people to use less invasive forms of advertising? Yes. Have I been successful? Not really. Have I found anywhere to work that doesn't have the same practices? No. Please don't play this game of "just because you do something I don't like I'm morally better than you" game. We're all flawed and not one of us is living up completely of our moral standards.
- keepmesmall 8y ago
  Assuming your dichotomy, you should lie in wait, and at any opportunity reduce and undo the harm you're contributing to. You may well already be doing this. If you prescribe to "the end justifies the means", you can stay fully apathetic (blocking out the guilt and shame). Worst case is you find you can't wash your hands of what you've done as you're old and dying (blockage breaks), and one could say it's too late to care then. Best case, you were worrying needlessly and the problem wasn't one (change in perspective). Bitter to me. Maybe it isn't even a "problem" or "evil" to you, and you're reacting to your perception of "someone else's perspective on evil being forced on you" while you don't consider it as such. On dichotomies: it's usually a lot more interesting to find a third option or to synthesize the two sides to get to a new position. So perhaps: * "compensate for your contribution to the evil by reducing it on a larger scale, e.g. company-wide" * "reduce expansion of evil in the company and support it's reduction" * "transition to running your own company" * "pay back society in some form or other once you have sufficient financial security for your family and yourself". Maybe you have to do this for now, and it's understandable you can't consider the society above your family or yourself, but it can't truly be the final solution? IMO, there's no cause or outcome where you are justified in working for an "evil" company, especially long-term as you'll inevitably contribute to the company's success (lest you be fired). Do you think there's a way to consider yourself forced to contribute to evil without running up a debt? (I mean "evil" from your own personal perspective.)

by drb91 8y ago

jimktrains2 8y ago

You're still begging the question. How does one choose between doing something supports a questionably moral company (and what isn't a company without any moral baggage?) and keeping your family fed and warm? > Just because a decision is hard doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to make the right [choice] I think this is telling: you believe there is a correct choice in all situations, from all points of view. I have no problems installing Google Analytics or AdWords on a site if my employer asks me to, but I personally run with ad blockers. The "right" decision in my case is to keep my family fed and warm because I don't think I can find a position at a company that doesn't do advertising or analytics and my own attempts to start my own companies have failed. I'm not willing to take the risk of long-term unemployment or to take a significantly lower paying job at a company that does the exact same thing (e.g. advertising). So please tell me why my decision is unequivocally wrong, especially in light of the ability of anyone to run an adblocker and that we adhere to all relevant regulations, e.g. GDPR. Additionally, please tell me where I (and everyone who doesn't like advertising) can find a living wage from a company that does not advertise or perform analytics (or do any other morally questionable activity).

drb91 8y ago
The decisions we make in life, and our difficulty making them, defines us. I can’t help you define your morality here.
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  You're still begging the question and acting like there is a fixed morality.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Nobody is begging any question. The answer is that it is for YOU to decide. I'm sorry if that's not a simple, yes/no answer for you, but the world isn't like that.
    - jimktrains2 8y ago
      I'm really at a loss to understand your reply. My original question was "How would you like people to square [being accountable for the actions of their employer] with providing for their families?" You've yet to say anything except implying that there is a single, black-and-white moral compass that everyone is capable of following in its entirety. There are no employers that have no moral shortcomings. Telling people that they're immoral for not destitute themselves is rather pointless and leads to a nowhere discussion because it started nowhere. Moreover, it's a fairly pointless expectation that everyone is I don't know what country you live in, but I can ask with certainty the same with respect to citizenship: How can you be a citizen of a country that's perpetrated atrocities. In that case, it's even more clear that there is no option -- there is no country that hasn't committed atrocities.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "My original question was "How would you like people to square [being accountable for the actions of their employer] with providing for their families?"" And the answer to that is, "It is up to those people to decide that. No one else can do it for them." "You've yet to say anything except implying that there is a single, black-and-white moral compass that everyone is capable of following in its entirety. " Wrong. Nobody but you has done that. You are the one demanding answers for how people square these things."
  - rhizome 8y ago
enraged_camel 8y ago
>>You're still begging the question. How does one choose between doing something supports a questionably moral company (and what isn't a company without any moral baggage?) and keeping your family fed and warm? It all comes down to a very simple (although fundamental) question about your morality and character: do you believe ends justify the means?
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  > It all comes down to a very simple (although fundamental) question about your morality and character: do you believe ends justify the means? It's also a question of morality: I obviously don't believe that all morally distasteful things are equal. AdWords is significantly less disasteful than my family starving. I would bet that most people, probably even including you, find driving much less distastful than going without or moving to an area with and using public transit, even though it's significantly more efficient. Since moving out on my own, I've purposely have always lived on good transit lines and fight for better transit. I would bet that most people, probably even including you, are OK purchasing cheap, foreign made items without a thought to the working conditions and environmental conditions that purchase is helping to enforce. I specifically seek out items made in countries with environmental regulations at least as strong as the US'. I would bet that most people, probably even including you, are OK purchasing food raised in unsustainable ways, or that is significantly out of season. I became vegetarian and strive to buy as much as I can from local farms. These are much more important to me than if I install an AdWords script on a website that's trivially easy to block by the end user. Do I wish I could convince people to use less invasive forms of advertising? Yes. Have I been successful? Not really. Have I found anywhere to work that doesn't have the same practices? No. Please don't play this game of "just because you do something I don't like I'm morally better than you" game. We're all flawed and not one of us is living up completely of our moral standards.
keepmesmall 8y ago
Assuming your dichotomy, you should lie in wait, and at any opportunity reduce and undo the harm you're contributing to. You may well already be doing this. If you prescribe to "the end justifies the means", you can stay fully apathetic (blocking out the guilt and shame). Worst case is you find you can't wash your hands of what you've done as you're old and dying (blockage breaks), and one could say it's too late to care then. Best case, you were worrying needlessly and the problem wasn't one (change in perspective). Bitter to me. Maybe it isn't even a "problem" or "evil" to you, and you're reacting to your perception of "someone else's perspective on evil being forced on you" while you don't consider it as such. On dichotomies: it's usually a lot more interesting to find a third option or to synthesize the two sides to get to a new position. So perhaps: * "compensate for your contribution to the evil by reducing it on a larger scale, e.g. company-wide" * "reduce expansion of evil in the company and support it's reduction" * "transition to running your own company" * "pay back society in some form or other once you have sufficient financial security for your family and yourself". Maybe you have to do this for now, and it's understandable you can't consider the society above your family or yourself, but it can't truly be the final solution? IMO, there's no cause or outcome where you are justified in working for an "evil" company, especially long-term as you'll inevitably contribute to the company's success (lest you be fired). Do you think there's a way to consider yourself forced to contribute to evil without running up a debt? (I mean "evil" from your own personal perspective.)