3 ms·
Technology is not inherently morally oblivious. Some technology has only one purpose, and is used only for immoral acts. An example of this would be any device
by fwip 6y ago
Technology is not inherently morally oblivious.
Some technology has only one purpose, and is used only for immoral acts. An example of this would be any device invented for torture.
While those examples are uncommon, more technology is built expressly for evil acts, even if it has the capacity for good. If you are distributing plans and technology to make "dirty bombs" - devices intended to disperse lethal amounts of radiation - it's impossible for a reasonable person to believe that it is not intended to murder people via radiation. Furthermore, in the context of today's world, you know that the most likely users of such a device would be terrorist organizations who will target innocent civilians.
An even greater percentage of technology is developed to support people doing evil acts. If you provide software or hardware to people doing evil acts (in this case, the Holocaust), you are giving them material aid. The software written to tabulate Jewish residents in Germany was developed for the Nazi party. Technical support and sales continued well after Nazi Germany had invaded Poland.
The fact that a man (or company) enriched himself by doing both bad and good things does not mean that his actions were morally neutral. Most people alive have done both bad and good things.
- nine_k 6y agoThe same firearm can be user to assault an innocent person and to protect an innocent person (in the hands of said person or law enforcement / army). There are certain devices, like napalm bombs, that have a narrow and specific purpose of destruction. But the technologies used to make the bomb shells or the napalm are not specific, and have all kinds of peaceful and constructive uses. Equally, there can be bad, evil-pursuing programs in a particular general purpose language, but this does not taint that language.
- ahmedtd 6y agoOne of the few takeaways I remember from my engineering ethics class is one way to think about the ethical implications of a tool: if you have a situation, and you introduce a tool, how do the possible outcomes of the situation change? For example, if you have two people arguing without weapons, the likely outcomes of the situation aren't strongly weighted towards one or both of the participants being maimed or killed --- it's difficult and requires commitment to really cause horrific damage if you're just hitting each other. If you introduce a (supposedly value-neutral) tool, like a gun, into the situation, the outcomes become much more strongly weighted towards someone being maimed or killed. Even though it's always a human using the tool, the tool itself can be seen as having an ethical character.
- fwip 6y agoI like that lens of analysis, thank you for sharing.