7 ms·

There's a big strain of consequentialism running through the modern left - no neutral service is held as neutral if it permits the 'wrong' customers.

vkou 6y ago
How does this square with people being angry at banks working with drug cartels, or at a Chinese cellphone manufacturer doing business in Iran? There are, in fact 'wrong customers' for the American right. It's just that their list of 'wrong customers' is different from that of the left.
karpierz 6y ago
Suppose that: 1. You provide tools to a group. 2. You believe (in a informed way) that the group intends to act immorally. 3. Your tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally. Do you have any responsibility for what happens?
- umvi 6y ago
  Suppose that I'm highly religious: 1. I make tools (wedding planning software) 2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group intends to act immorally (use my tools to plan a gay wedding) 3. My tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally Do I have any responsibility for what happens? Or (alternatively): 1. I make tools (highly specialized chemicals) 2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group intends to act immorally (use my chemicals to improve abortions) 3. My tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally Do I have any responsibility for what happens? ===== IMO, it's better not to attempt to be morality police. Focus on making great tools.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Lot's of people seem to think so. Masterpiece Cake shop was a supreme court decision around, essentially, that question, that upheld the right for the private entity to discriminate. So yes I think everyone would agree you have some responsibility (otherwise no one would care about the outcome of the case, why request the right to discriminate if you don't feel that you have any responsibility for the resulting acts?)
    - Fellshard 6y ago
      It was more specific than that: a cake shop participates directly in the creative effort with the client in the way a software service provider does not.
      - rhacker 6y ago
        If the client is large enough, it does. Same as with a cake shop. Someone buying a slice of cake doesn't participate as someone asking for the design of a cake at a much higher cost.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Software service providers certainly do implement features requested directly by clients.
        Fellshard 6y ago
        Features, yes. Are those features directly connected to those clients' work, or is it a more general feature that has to do with the execution of the service? I will agree that it's dubious that that nuance is reflected in the rulings on the Masterpiece case. I'm trying to follow the same lines set there, though, in my argumentation.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > Are those features directly connected to those clients' work How can they not be?
        Fellshard 6y ago
        Let me rephrase to see if it answers your question: Would the added features be useful in another context? Would they be useful regardless of the type of work being done? Are they merely enhancements of the platform, or are they specifically tailored to the client's domain?
  - flamble 6y ago
    In both cases, you very clearly have some responsibility. In an incredibly straightforward and unambiguous way. I'm struggling to see how this is intended as a counterexample. Is it because disapproving of homosexuality is wrong? That doesn't at all change the entailment of responsibility by the conjunction of foreknowledge of consequences with uncoerced action. If you walk out into a public street and fire a pistol around you randomly, you are clearly responsible for any death or injuries thereby caused (given that you were aware of the likely outcomes), even if it is through negligence or indifference rather than deliberate intent.
    - umvi 6y ago
      Well, I disagree. I have more of a "live and let live" or "golden rule" type philosophy. I wouldn't want someone denying me service because they disagree with my beliefs (and by extension, actions), so I don't deny service to people who have beliefs (and by extension, actions) I disagree with.
      - karpierz 6y ago
        Would you sell a man a gun if they told you: "hey, if you sell this to me, I'm going to go shoot that black kid outside", and then showed you a few videos of them doing this before?
        umvi 6y ago
        Well in this case since they showed me video evidence of murder, I would call the police (assuming I don't live in a CHAZ zone). This is bogus though. Will Home Depot allow me to buy some rope if I declare to a random employee that I plan on using it to do a lynching on my local colored neighbors? Yes, they will. Does that make Home Depot an immoral organization? Nope.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > if I declare to a random employee that I plan on using it to do a lynching on my local colored neighbors? Yes, they will. Does that make Home Depot an immoral organization? Nope. I'd hope (and expect!) that home depot employees would ask you to leave if you made those statements while trying to purchase rope.
  - cco 6y ago
    Sure, but in those two examples the behavior isn't actually immoral, so the work of those companies doesn't increase immoral behavior at all. They can rest easy that gay people will marry with more efficiency and no increase in immoral behavior occurred.
    - astine 6y ago
      This line of reasoning begs the question. Yes, according to your moral framework, one is actually immoral and the other isn't, but living in a pluralist society requires leaving room for people to have and live by very different moral frameworks. There isn't a universally acknowledged objective standard of morality by which we can judge all actions and beliefs in a society so we need to structure the rule by which we settle moral disputes in a way that doesn't create moral hazard down the line.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  If you do have that responsibility, then a huge swath of open source developers in the world are guilty of abetting pedophiles, rapists, and terrorists.
  - karpierz 6y ago
    Do these open source developers: A) Have a means of identifying which of their users are pedophiles, rapists, and terrorists? B) Have a means of selectively denying people access to the tools? C) Have a means of determining which of these users would using their tools to rape, produce child porn, and enact terrorism? If so, then yes, I would say they're guilty.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      Well, in the past open source developers have attempted to put morality clauses into their licenses(ie You may not use this software in the development of nuclear weapons), but it was determined by the open source overlords that if a license puts a restriction on a specific usage, it is no longer Open Source. So everyone who chooses to license their software as open source is making a choice that intentionally limits their own ability to prevent others from using the licensed software legally. So no, open source software developers don't have the choice to restrict certain groups from using it - but that is because it was a choice they themselves made on how to license the software. Isn't that the ultimate hand washing?
cmdshiftf4 6y ago
"Here's our service, use it if you'd like, just don't do anything illegal on/with it" is a line that I'm almost positive the group you're referring to would deem to be "fascist" at this point in time.
netsharc 6y ago
If we change the nationality of the police or immigration force (let's pick.. China), I feel like even people on the "right" will have the opinion that it's wrong to work with them...
andromeduck 6y ago
Yeah collectivist and consequentialist views are not without merrit but without a very high threshold things quickly becoming unworkable. There needs to be a balance.
krrrh 6y ago
There is also a huge generational split between those on the left holding liberal values, and the new progressive left, which has been demonstrated by the recent crackups at media organs like the New York Times (who saw it in their mandate to publish an op-Ed by Hitler in 1941, but the publishing of a sitting senator (Tom Cotton) resulted in a staff revolt and cost the opinion editor his job).[1] Anyone who was around when the OSI set out a basic definition of minimal requirements for open source licenses will remember that there were some arguments about whether a license could restrict use based on fields of endeavour. The idea that it couldn’t is aligned with universalist civil libertarian principles, and epistemological humility. > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.[2] The principles of open source are still very strong, and somehow more obvious than free speech or due process. The network effects could make it impossible for any significant change, but I expect we’ll soon see attempts at licenses that are otherwise free, but attempt to restrict use by certain domestic enemies of the maintainers. [1] Matt Taibbi - https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i... [2] OSI - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
flamble 6y ago
No reasonable conception of ethics is anything but consequentialist. Do you intend the word as a criticism? Do you have some alternate, deontological, view?

vkou 6y ago

How does this square with people being angry at banks working with drug cartels, or at a Chinese cellphone manufacturer doing business in Iran? There are, in fact 'wrong customers' for the American right. It's just that their list of 'wrong customers' is different from that of the left.

karpierz 6y ago

Suppose that: 1. You provide tools to a group. 2. You believe (in a informed way) that the group intends to act immorally. 3. Your tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally. Do you have any responsibility for what happens?

umvi 6y ago
Suppose that I'm highly religious: 1. I make tools (wedding planning software) 2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group intends to act immorally (use my tools to plan a gay wedding) 3. My tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally Do I have any responsibility for what happens? Or (alternatively): 1. I make tools (highly specialized chemicals) 2. I believe (in an informed way) that a group intends to act immorally (use my chemicals to improve abortions) 3. My tools will make the group more effective at acting immorally Do I have any responsibility for what happens? ===== IMO, it's better not to attempt to be morality police. Focus on making great tools.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Lot's of people seem to think so. Masterpiece Cake shop was a supreme court decision around, essentially, that question, that upheld the right for the private entity to discriminate. So yes I think everyone would agree you have some responsibility (otherwise no one would care about the outcome of the case, why request the right to discriminate if you don't feel that you have any responsibility for the resulting acts?)
  - Fellshard 6y ago
    It was more specific than that: a cake shop participates directly in the creative effort with the client in the way a software service provider does not.
    - rhacker 6y ago
      If the client is large enough, it does. Same as with a cake shop. Someone buying a slice of cake doesn't participate as someone asking for the design of a cake at a much higher cost.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Software service providers certainly do implement features requested directly by clients.
      - Fellshard 6y ago
        Features, yes. Are those features directly connected to those clients' work, or is it a more general feature that has to do with the execution of the service? I will agree that it's dubious that that nuance is reflected in the rulings on the Masterpiece case. I'm trying to follow the same lines set there, though, in my argumentation.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > Are those features directly connected to those clients' work How can they not be?
        Fellshard 6y ago
        Let me rephrase to see if it answers your question: Would the added features be useful in another context? Would they be useful regardless of the type of work being done? Are they merely enhancements of the platform, or are they specifically tailored to the client's domain?
- flamble 6y ago
  In both cases, you very clearly have some responsibility. In an incredibly straightforward and unambiguous way. I'm struggling to see how this is intended as a counterexample. Is it because disapproving of homosexuality is wrong? That doesn't at all change the entailment of responsibility by the conjunction of foreknowledge of consequences with uncoerced action. If you walk out into a public street and fire a pistol around you randomly, you are clearly responsible for any death or injuries thereby caused (given that you were aware of the likely outcomes), even if it is through negligence or indifference rather than deliberate intent.
  - umvi 6y ago
    Well, I disagree. I have more of a "live and let live" or "golden rule" type philosophy. I wouldn't want someone denying me service because they disagree with my beliefs (and by extension, actions), so I don't deny service to people who have beliefs (and by extension, actions) I disagree with.
    - karpierz 6y ago
      Would you sell a man a gun if they told you: "hey, if you sell this to me, I'm going to go shoot that black kid outside", and then showed you a few videos of them doing this before?
      - umvi 6y ago
        Well in this case since they showed me video evidence of murder, I would call the police (assuming I don't live in a CHAZ zone). This is bogus though. Will Home Depot allow me to buy some rope if I declare to a random employee that I plan on using it to do a lynching on my local colored neighbors? Yes, they will. Does that make Home Depot an immoral organization? Nope.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > if I declare to a random employee that I plan on using it to do a lynching on my local colored neighbors? Yes, they will. Does that make Home Depot an immoral organization? Nope. I'd hope (and expect!) that home depot employees would ask you to leave if you made those statements while trying to purchase rope.
- cco 6y ago
  Sure, but in those two examples the behavior isn't actually immoral, so the work of those companies doesn't increase immoral behavior at all. They can rest easy that gay people will marry with more efficiency and no increase in immoral behavior occurred.
  - astine 6y ago
    This line of reasoning begs the question. Yes, according to your moral framework, one is actually immoral and the other isn't, but living in a pluralist society requires leaving room for people to have and live by very different moral frameworks. There isn't a universally acknowledged objective standard of morality by which we can judge all actions and beliefs in a society so we need to structure the rule by which we settle moral disputes in a way that doesn't create moral hazard down the line.
oh_sigh 6y ago
If you do have that responsibility, then a huge swath of open source developers in the world are guilty of abetting pedophiles, rapists, and terrorists.
- karpierz 6y ago
  Do these open source developers: A) Have a means of identifying which of their users are pedophiles, rapists, and terrorists? B) Have a means of selectively denying people access to the tools? C) Have a means of determining which of these users would using their tools to rape, produce child porn, and enact terrorism? If so, then yes, I would say they're guilty.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    Well, in the past open source developers have attempted to put morality clauses into their licenses(ie You may not use this software in the development of nuclear weapons), but it was determined by the open source overlords that if a license puts a restriction on a specific usage, it is no longer Open Source. So everyone who chooses to license their software as open source is making a choice that intentionally limits their own ability to prevent others from using the licensed software legally. So no, open source software developers don't have the choice to restrict certain groups from using it - but that is because it was a choice they themselves made on how to license the software. Isn't that the ultimate hand washing?

cmdshiftf4 6y ago

"Here's our service, use it if you'd like, just don't do anything illegal on/with it" is a line that I'm almost positive the group you're referring to would deem to be "fascist" at this point in time.

netsharc 6y ago

If we change the nationality of the police or immigration force (let's pick.. China), I feel like even people on the "right" will have the opinion that it's wrong to work with them...

andromeduck 6y ago

Yeah collectivist and consequentialist views are not without merrit but without a very high threshold things quickly becoming unworkable. There needs to be a balance.

krrrh 6y ago

There is also a huge generational split between those on the left holding liberal values, and the new progressive left, which has been demonstrated by the recent crackups at media organs like the New York Times (who saw it in their mandate to publish an op-Ed by Hitler in 1941, but the publishing of a sitting senator (Tom Cotton) resulted in a staff revolt and cost the opinion editor his job).[1] Anyone who was around when the OSI set out a basic definition of minimal requirements for open source licenses will remember that there were some arguments about whether a license could restrict use based on fields of endeavour. The idea that it couldn’t is aligned with universalist civil libertarian principles, and epistemological humility. > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.[2] The principles of open source are still very strong, and somehow more obvious than free speech or due process. The network effects could make it impossible for any significant change, but I expect we’ll soon see attempts at licenses that are otherwise free, but attempt to restrict use by certain domestic enemies of the maintainers. [1] Matt Taibbi - https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i... [2] OSI - https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

flamble 6y ago

No reasonable conception of ethics is anything but consequentialist. Do you intend the word as a criticism? Do you have some alternate, deontological, view?