4 ms·

The maturity could be the ability to compartmentalize. Whether that's a good thing is up for debate. Should we keep religion out of politics? Should we keep po

by fiter 7y ago

The maturity could be the ability to compartmentalize. Whether that's a good thing is up for debate. Should we keep religion out of politics? Should we keep politics out of work? I doubt there are any clear answers.

SolarNet 7y ago
> Should we keep religion out of politics? Should we keep politics out of work? I doubt there are any clear answers. Sure we should probably keep politics out of work. Human rights abuses are not politics though. We can disagree on corporate regulation, taxes, transportation policy, zoning laws, bike lanes whatever. Hell we can disagree on gun control, abortion, climate change, whether the earth is flat or round. But if there is a government organization within our control (e.g. we vote for the people who vote on controlling it) that is killing people, is torturing people (raping thousands of kids), is oppressing reporting on it, that's not politics any more.
- ryanbrunner 7y ago
  > Human rights abuses are not politics though. They absolutely are political. The entire concept of human rights is political. There's a widespread consensus in many, many countries that they are worth protecting, but there's nothing magical or special about human rights that gives them any power beyond any other political decision.
  - SolarNet 7y ago
    Sure they are political, but that doesn't mean they should fall under the umbrella of what people consider politics in polite conversation or - for example - at work. To draw an analogy of a sort of inverse example, Brexit is political but is not politics to most people in many cases. Human rights abuses may be political, but they aren't politics if we are responsible for them, they are unconscionable. It may be politics to discuss what to do about the human rights abuses in other countries. But we are responsible for the murder, torture, and rape of children as a systemic policy. If that sort of policy is politics then some of the politicians involved are violators of human rights and should be imprisoned.
wvenable 7y ago
I think if your work is to construct the machines sent to the Nazi's to help perpetrate the Holocaust, you should probably not compartmentalize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust The clear answer is that one should never just be following orders and if your company is doing something that you personally feel uncomfortable with, you should try to stop it. And failing that, quit.
- fiter 7y ago
  I completely agree that if you do not feel comfortable with the work you are doing, then you should stop. If you feel comfortable with it because you've compartmentalized, then I imagine you would not stop. And, unfortunately, there's often some reason to compartmentalize some situations: because your competitor will just as soon take the business. It certainly would have been better if we could have gotten US policy on Nazi Germany to change much earlier than it did. It would have solved the coordination problem--for US companies, anyway. This would have required direct political action. > Harry Truman, was quoted in the pages of New York Times in June 1941 as saying, “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible …”
  - wvenable 7y ago
    > because your competitor will just as soon take the business. So what? You might as well be a hitman because, if you're not, somebody else will. You're just leaving money on the table by not being a killer for hire. Your own principles don't depend on what your competitors will do.
    - fiter 7y ago
      I stated that in the beginning and then moved on because the world is not black and white like the case of being a hitman (besides that is already solved politically). You are going to face situations that are ambiguous as I believe was the case for most Americans at the time of the IBM sales for the Nazi censuses. That specific point was about the importance of using your political power to act as a group in a way that will actually affect the world, rather than solely appeasing your conscience/principles.

by fiter 7y ago

SolarNet 7y ago

> Should we keep religion out of politics? Should we keep politics out of work? I doubt there are any clear answers. Sure we should probably keep politics out of work. Human rights abuses are not politics though. We can disagree on corporate regulation, taxes, transportation policy, zoning laws, bike lanes whatever. Hell we can disagree on gun control, abortion, climate change, whether the earth is flat or round. But if there is a government organization within our control (e.g. we vote for the people who vote on controlling it) that is killing people, is torturing people (raping thousands of kids), is oppressing reporting on it, that's not politics any more.

ryanbrunner 7y ago
> Human rights abuses are not politics though. They absolutely are political. The entire concept of human rights is political. There's a widespread consensus in many, many countries that they are worth protecting, but there's nothing magical or special about human rights that gives them any power beyond any other political decision.
- SolarNet 7y ago
  Sure they are political, but that doesn't mean they should fall under the umbrella of what people consider politics in polite conversation or - for example - at work. To draw an analogy of a sort of inverse example, Brexit is political but is not politics to most people in many cases. Human rights abuses may be political, but they aren't politics if we are responsible for them, they are unconscionable. It may be politics to discuss what to do about the human rights abuses in other countries. But we are responsible for the murder, torture, and rape of children as a systemic policy. If that sort of policy is politics then some of the politicians involved are violators of human rights and should be imprisoned.

wvenable 7y ago

I think if your work is to construct the machines sent to the Nazi's to help perpetrate the Holocaust, you should probably not compartmentalize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust The clear answer is that one should never just be following orders and if your company is doing something that you personally feel uncomfortable with, you should try to stop it. And failing that, quit.

fiter 7y ago
I completely agree that if you do not feel comfortable with the work you are doing, then you should stop. If you feel comfortable with it because you've compartmentalized, then I imagine you would not stop. And, unfortunately, there's often some reason to compartmentalize some situations: because your competitor will just as soon take the business. It certainly would have been better if we could have gotten US policy on Nazi Germany to change much earlier than it did. It would have solved the coordination problem--for US companies, anyway. This would have required direct political action. > Harry Truman, was quoted in the pages of New York Times in June 1941 as saying, “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible …”
- wvenable 7y ago
  > because your competitor will just as soon take the business. So what? You might as well be a hitman because, if you're not, somebody else will. You're just leaving money on the table by not being a killer for hire. Your own principles don't depend on what your competitors will do.
  - fiter 7y ago
    I stated that in the beginning and then moved on because the world is not black and white like the case of being a hitman (besides that is already solved politically). You are going to face situations that are ambiguous as I believe was the case for most Americans at the time of the IBM sales for the Nazi censuses. That specific point was about the importance of using your political power to act as a group in a way that will actually affect the world, rather than solely appeasing your conscience/principles.