5 ms·

Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I guess software engineers can take an oath not to kill people or put people in jail, but after that it'

Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I guess software engineers can take an oath not to kill people or put people in jail, but after that it's your morals vs. mine, no? And if I work for the Department of Defense making missile guidance software, then it's OK to kill people, I suppose...

maxxxxx 8y ago
Some people will think creating weapons for defense is an ethical thing to do. I prefer not to do that but I think the point is valid and there is no clear way to determine what’s ethical and what isn't.
- Kalium 8y ago
  Such people are welcome to the freedom of their consciences. There is a distinction between personal ethics and professional ethics. In my opinion, that position crosses the line and lands squarely in the realm of personal ethics.
- matz1 8y ago
  You define what the ethics is. If you think creating weapon for defense is not preferable to you then you better work on convincing or forcing other to follow.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
    - matz1 8y ago
      Edited some mistake. My point is everyone have different ethics. You must fight for your preference if you want yours to be the winning ethics. There no one true "correct" ethics
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        I guess we agree then. Determining what’s ethical is personal and it will be hard to crater a universal code.
- analognoise 8y ago
  What's unethical is to have your countrymen in a fight with substandard equipment that you could have helped them improve. War is an ever-present possibility - do you want your neighbor's kids (or yours, if they join the service) dying or being maimed because you didn't help with what you know? 1000 years ago, if you were a blacksmith and the Vikings were coming, would you make swords or ornamental railings? People who think "it's unethical to make weapons" always assume that someone else is making the weapons, which makes them feel good about themselves (not sure why) - they're willing to sacrifice themselves and their neighbor's children for their ethics. I'm not. I make weapons, and I think the 'ethical' stance on defense is really just virtue-signalling. /Edited. ;)
  - detaro 8y ago
    I suspect that if people could rely on that the weapons they make are used defensively, many more would be willing to make weapons. In many countries, you can't rely on that, and making tools that reduce risk increase the leaderships willingness to use force more offensively. And of course there's a large unclear area where one persons long-term defensive measure is another persons justified intervention, and another persons war of aggression.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Personal I think a country needs to produce defense weapons but I would draw a line at selling to unstable countries for profit. Defense should not be a profit center
      - analognoise 8y ago
        Whole hearted agreement about selling to unstable countries for profit. But selling to our friends/allies? I like the French, I'd be overjoyed if they thought my weapons were so chic/dangerous that they'd protect their countrymen in their most perilous times. Same thing if the Germans, Canadians, Japanese, etc bought my wares. Why not? Saudi Arabia... not a fan, I don't think that's wise at all, I think that's going to come back to bite us in the ass and that it's a mistake in progress. The system isn't perfect, I admit.
MangezBien 8y ago
Making missile guidance software is wholly unethical and is what we should be striving to prevent engineers from working on.
- tzs 8y ago
  I bet the civilians who do not become collateral damage because the missile that was supposed to hit a military base did so due to good guidance software instead of missing and hitting their town would disagree. When a situation has escalated to the point that someone is launching missiles, it has usually reached the point where destroying the target is more important to them then the risk of collateral damage. If the guidance software is not good enough to give a small margin of error, they will launch several missiles to ensure that one is likely to hit the target, which pretty much guarantees a lot of damage throughout the margin of error of the guidance software.
  - kazagistar 8y ago
    How about getting rid of those bloodthirsty decision makers, and in the meantime not supporting their violent rampaging.
    - jimktrains2 8y ago
      While I appreciate your sentiment, and would describe myself as a pacifist as well, I am unable to say that self-defense is unethical. However, even in 10th grade, when we first entered Afghanistan, I found the concept of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq appalling, unjustifiable, expensive, unproductive, and without a way out. Nearly two decades later and that all seems to be true. That said, I wouldn't find myself saying "don't retaliate" if there was an actual force striking the country. Being unable to categorically rule out self defense, springing from/combined with, being unable to control others means that we may need to defend ourselves, and if we must, we should be capable. I don't know if I could work for the military, directly or as a contractor, but I'm not ready to say that every member in uniform and every contractor is amoral for doing so. Anyway, my point is even if you convinced your entire country to never take up offensive arms, would you be able to also convince everyone else to as well? Would you be willing to tell your countrymen not to take up defensive arms?
enraged_camel 8y ago
>>Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I think this is an oversimplification. A lot of doctors deal with non-life threatening diseases and ailments, and some even deal with purely cosmetic stuff (e.g. plastic surgeons). Similarly, a lot of lawyers deal with issues that don't directly carry a risk of a jail sentence, e.g. workers compensation.
LeonB 8y ago
If you’re a lawyer representing a mass murderer you must still represent the interests of the client. To not do so would see you disbarred. So professional ethics can run counter to what a polite member of society would normally wish to do.
- 7402 8y ago
  Although I believe lawyers are still required to disclose to the authorities any information concerning their clients' intention to commit a crime in the future - so the obligation to represent a client's interests is not unlimited.

maxxxxx 8y ago

Some people will think creating weapons for defense is an ethical thing to do. I prefer not to do that but I think the point is valid and there is no clear way to determine what’s ethical and what isn't.

Kalium 8y ago
Such people are welcome to the freedom of their consciences. There is a distinction between personal ethics and professional ethics. In my opinion, that position crosses the line and lands squarely in the realm of personal ethics.
matz1 8y ago
You define what the ethics is. If you think creating weapon for defense is not preferable to you then you better work on convincing or forcing other to follow.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Edited some mistake. My point is everyone have different ethics. You must fight for your preference if you want yours to be the winning ethics. There no one true "correct" ethics
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      I guess we agree then. Determining what’s ethical is personal and it will be hard to crater a universal code.
analognoise 8y ago
What's unethical is to have your countrymen in a fight with substandard equipment that you could have helped them improve. War is an ever-present possibility - do you want your neighbor's kids (or yours, if they join the service) dying or being maimed because you didn't help with what you know? 1000 years ago, if you were a blacksmith and the Vikings were coming, would you make swords or ornamental railings? People who think "it's unethical to make weapons" always assume that someone else is making the weapons, which makes them feel good about themselves (not sure why) - they're willing to sacrifice themselves and their neighbor's children for their ethics. I'm not. I make weapons, and I think the 'ethical' stance on defense is really just virtue-signalling. /Edited. ;)
- detaro 8y ago
  I suspect that if people could rely on that the weapons they make are used defensively, many more would be willing to make weapons. In many countries, you can't rely on that, and making tools that reduce risk increase the leaderships willingness to use force more offensively. And of course there's a large unclear area where one persons long-term defensive measure is another persons justified intervention, and another persons war of aggression.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Personal I think a country needs to produce defense weapons but I would draw a line at selling to unstable countries for profit. Defense should not be a profit center
    - analognoise 8y ago
      Whole hearted agreement about selling to unstable countries for profit. But selling to our friends/allies? I like the French, I'd be overjoyed if they thought my weapons were so chic/dangerous that they'd protect their countrymen in their most perilous times. Same thing if the Germans, Canadians, Japanese, etc bought my wares. Why not? Saudi Arabia... not a fan, I don't think that's wise at all, I think that's going to come back to bite us in the ass and that it's a mistake in progress. The system isn't perfect, I admit.

MangezBien 8y ago

Making missile guidance software is wholly unethical and is what we should be striving to prevent engineers from working on.

tzs 8y ago
I bet the civilians who do not become collateral damage because the missile that was supposed to hit a military base did so due to good guidance software instead of missing and hitting their town would disagree. When a situation has escalated to the point that someone is launching missiles, it has usually reached the point where destroying the target is more important to them then the risk of collateral damage. If the guidance software is not good enough to give a small margin of error, they will launch several missiles to ensure that one is likely to hit the target, which pretty much guarantees a lot of damage throughout the margin of error of the guidance software.
- kazagistar 8y ago
  How about getting rid of those bloodthirsty decision makers, and in the meantime not supporting their violent rampaging.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    While I appreciate your sentiment, and would describe myself as a pacifist as well, I am unable to say that self-defense is unethical. However, even in 10th grade, when we first entered Afghanistan, I found the concept of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq appalling, unjustifiable, expensive, unproductive, and without a way out. Nearly two decades later and that all seems to be true. That said, I wouldn't find myself saying "don't retaliate" if there was an actual force striking the country. Being unable to categorically rule out self defense, springing from/combined with, being unable to control others means that we may need to defend ourselves, and if we must, we should be capable. I don't know if I could work for the military, directly or as a contractor, but I'm not ready to say that every member in uniform and every contractor is amoral for doing so. Anyway, my point is even if you convinced your entire country to never take up offensive arms, would you be able to also convince everyone else to as well? Would you be willing to tell your countrymen not to take up defensive arms?

enraged_camel 8y ago

>>Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I think this is an oversimplification. A lot of doctors deal with non-life threatening diseases and ailments, and some even deal with purely cosmetic stuff (e.g. plastic surgeons). Similarly, a lot of lawyers deal with issues that don't directly carry a risk of a jail sentence, e.g. workers compensation.

LeonB 8y ago

If you’re a lawyer representing a mass murderer you must still represent the interests of the client. To not do so would see you disbarred. So professional ethics can run counter to what a polite member of society would normally wish to do.

7402 8y ago
Although I believe lawyers are still required to disclose to the authorities any information concerning their clients' intention to commit a crime in the future - so the obligation to represent a client's interests is not unlimited.