4 ms·

With this issue and most ethical issues I've encountered, it's important to realize that the work is still going to get done by someone. Don't fool yourself int

With this issue and most ethical issues I've encountered, it's important to realize that the work is still going to get done by someone. Don't fool yourself into thinking you're going prevent Pfizer from marketing their drug. But that's not why you do the right thing. You do the right thing because you get to choose whether the blood is on your hands or not. You get go sleep and go to your grave with different amounts of guilt and peace. You get to tell your kids these stories and help them make better decisions. Through all of that, you might make the cost of deceptive websites a little bit higher and the message a little bit less effective. Or you might not, but that's not the point. In short, don't make your ethical choices on the impact it will have on the world. Make them for the impact it will have on you. (The alternative will mean you'll struggle a lot more making the right decision, knowing that Pfizer will just get someone else to make the site and maybe you should still take the work and then donate some of the money to a good cause.)

rwbhn 6y ago
"the work is still going to get done by someone" - this assumes an infinite supply of devs willing to do unethical work. Sure, in this specific instance they probably will - but I don't think we should completely dismiss the impact of decreasing that supply.
- matkoniecz 6y ago
  And even if that work would be done anyway, I still would not want be a person who designs a death camp.
ysleepy 6y ago
I strongly disagree with almost your whole comment. It is almost sociopathic. Of course you should judge your actions based on their (potential) outcome for all involved. "The alternative will mean you'll struggle a lot more making the right decision [...]" Yeah, no shit. I really don't want to seem like some crusader, but this comment seems like a caricature of the "Just following orders" mentality.
- SQueeeeeL 6y ago
  Think of Google and Project Dragonfly, to the business execs it's a perfectly reasonable thing; but the employees it's evil. But you work for Google and if they tell you to jump you say "how high" or you get fired, that's how jobs/capitalism work. Following your moral code WILL be difficult...
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    President Kennedy was shot. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed. Mandela went to prison and still found a way to forgive every single former oppressor. Yet, all these people advanced societies. Look at Ghandi, who freed an entire nation, that was difficult. Finding a job or starting a business outside of Google is not the same level of difficult. If the employees thought something was evil, either they are evil for doing it, or they didn't actually think it was evil.
- ballenf 6y ago
  Not sure where the disconnect is exactly, but I feel like I'm saying the exact opposite of your characterization. I'm trying to give people the mental clarity to easily reject unethical work without worrying about whether the choice is going to affect anyone else. If you only choose to do the right thing if it makes things better for others, you'll have a lot harder time making the right choice. And if enough people do this, the impact on the world for good is unlimited. And that is my hope.
- scandox 6y ago
  I think you've misread the intent of that post.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  I'm certain that ballenf meant to follow the dictates of one's own inner conscience to do what is commonly called "the right thing." I fail to understand how can so many people instead ascribe evil intentions to what was a wonderful comment about improving one's actions.
arp242 6y ago
> it's important to realize that the work is still going to get done by someone. Not necessarily; saying "whoah, this is really wrong and I'm not doing it!" also forces others to consider what they're doing, and perhaps adjust their position. Would it in this case? Probably not, but it's not inconceivable that something would have changed to be less bad. Either way, just rolling over because it's the most convenient thing sounds lazy, apathetic, and quite selfish. > In short, don't make your ethical choices on the impact it will have on the world. Make them for the impact it will have on you. So you should "just be following orders" if that has a positive impact on you? I hate to Godwin things here, but that's really how your entire comment is coming across...
- IncRnd 6y ago
  > So you should "just be following orders" if that has a positive impact on you? I hate to Godwin things here, but that's really how your entire comment is coming across... You came up with a reading that was completely opposite mine. I had thought that the gp referred to the ideals of the pinnacle of proper behavior, not self-gratifying behavior.
- ballenf 6y ago
  > So you should "just be following orders" if that has a positive impact on you? If having blood on your hands has a positive impact on you I doubt you're reading a HN thread about ethics, so you weren't my intended audience. I was writing to people who are trying to do the right thing, even when it's hard to know what that means in every situation.

rwbhn 6y ago

"the work is still going to get done by someone" - this assumes an infinite supply of devs willing to do unethical work. Sure, in this specific instance they probably will - but I don't think we should completely dismiss the impact of decreasing that supply.

matkoniecz 6y ago
And even if that work would be done anyway, I still would not want be a person who designs a death camp.

ysleepy 6y ago

I strongly disagree with almost your whole comment. It is almost sociopathic. Of course you should judge your actions based on their (potential) outcome for all involved. "The alternative will mean you'll struggle a lot more making the right decision [...]" Yeah, no shit. I really don't want to seem like some crusader, but this comment seems like a caricature of the "Just following orders" mentality.

SQueeeeeL 6y ago
Think of Google and Project Dragonfly, to the business execs it's a perfectly reasonable thing; but the employees it's evil. But you work for Google and if they tell you to jump you say "how high" or you get fired, that's how jobs/capitalism work. Following your moral code WILL be difficult...
- IncRnd 6y ago
  President Kennedy was shot. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed. Mandela went to prison and still found a way to forgive every single former oppressor. Yet, all these people advanced societies. Look at Ghandi, who freed an entire nation, that was difficult. Finding a job or starting a business outside of Google is not the same level of difficult. If the employees thought something was evil, either they are evil for doing it, or they didn't actually think it was evil.
ballenf 6y ago
Not sure where the disconnect is exactly, but I feel like I'm saying the exact opposite of your characterization. I'm trying to give people the mental clarity to easily reject unethical work without worrying about whether the choice is going to affect anyone else. If you only choose to do the right thing if it makes things better for others, you'll have a lot harder time making the right choice. And if enough people do this, the impact on the world for good is unlimited. And that is my hope.
scandox 6y ago
I think you've misread the intent of that post.
IncRnd 6y ago
I'm certain that ballenf meant to follow the dictates of one's own inner conscience to do what is commonly called "the right thing." I fail to understand how can so many people instead ascribe evil intentions to what was a wonderful comment about improving one's actions.

arp242 6y ago

> it's important to realize that the work is still going to get done by someone. Not necessarily; saying "whoah, this is really wrong and I'm not doing it!" also forces others to consider what they're doing, and perhaps adjust their position. Would it in this case? Probably not, but it's not inconceivable that something would have changed to be less bad. Either way, just rolling over because it's the most convenient thing sounds lazy, apathetic, and quite selfish. > In short, don't make your ethical choices on the impact it will have on the world. Make them for the impact it will have on you. So you should "just be following orders" if that has a positive impact on you? I hate to Godwin things here, but that's really how your entire comment is coming across...

IncRnd 6y ago
> So you should "just be following orders" if that has a positive impact on you? I hate to Godwin things here, but that's really how your entire comment is coming across... You came up with a reading that was completely opposite mine. I had thought that the gp referred to the ideals of the pinnacle of proper behavior, not self-gratifying behavior.
ballenf 6y ago
> So you should "just be following orders" if that has a positive impact on you? If having blood on your hands has a positive impact on you I doubt you're reading a HN thread about ethics, so you weren't my intended audience. I was writing to people who are trying to do the right thing, even when it's hard to know what that means in every situation.