7 ms·

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 mo

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?
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        FWIW, in my work I've seen both. But I'm sort of asking things at a higher level. If a client is asking you to prioritize a generic enhancement over others, they are presumably doing so because they believe that generic enhancement will have the greatest value to their work. So if ICE asks github to prioritize better native CI support for Windows, or something, they're doing it because it is of maximum benefit to ICE.
        afiori 6y ago
        It is still debatable how much this has to do with the matter at hand. It is completely possible that github only utility is to process applications faster so that people will stay detained for shorter times. Or that it serves a completely unrelated purpose that has no influence on the issue.
- 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?

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?
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        FWIW, in my work I've seen both. But I'm sort of asking things at a higher level. If a client is asking you to prioritize a generic enhancement over others, they are presumably doing so because they believe that generic enhancement will have the greatest value to their work. So if ICE asks github to prioritize better native CI support for Windows, or something, they're doing it because it is of maximum benefit to ICE.
        afiori 6y ago
        It is still debatable how much this has to do with the matter at hand. It is completely possible that github only utility is to process applications faster so that people will stay detained for shorter times. Or that it serves a completely unrelated purpose that has no influence on the issue.
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?