6 ms·
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
by 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 agoLot'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 agoIt 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 agoIf 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 agoSoftware service providers certainly do implement features requested directly by clients.
- Fellshard 6y agoFeatures, 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 agoLet 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 agoFWIW, 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 agoIt 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 agoIn 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 agoWell, 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 agoWould 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 agoWell 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 agoSure, 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 agoThis 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.