2 ms·

> I disagree with your moral conclusion - we all have responsibility as individuals with regards to what our work contributes to. This goes for anything from mi

> I disagree with your moral conclusion - we all have responsibility as individuals with regards to what our work contributes to. This goes for anything from military personnel to software engineers. That you don't have legal risk doesn't mean you don't have ethical responsibility. Does that really work in the real world? When you don't have workplace rights and concepts like "at will employment", can you really expect the individual to have any sympathy towards the company or society? If you and your job is as expendable as a tissue and you struggle your whole life to get one, be in one and earn the almighty dollar, where the lack of the dollar means your kids go hungry and cold, would you place higher priority on morals for "the greater good"? Those who are made to do un-ethical things in companies are usually picked because they have no other way than to be in the job, or are greedy enough to put their morals behind them. Good luck trying to force morality on either of them.

3np 6y ago
To me, this rings similar to people who argue against eating animals with "but what if you're starving and alone on a deserted island?!" (and no, that's not a straw-man) I think you conflate these two things somewhat: Of course there are always extreme situations when people are left with tough decisions and have to choose between "doing the right thing" and sustaining themselves and their family. Separately, there are egotistic people who will disregard the consequences of their actions on others. For those who only care about themselves, it is hard to change things without changing incentive structures. Finally, some are just ignorant because they don't know or didn't think it through deeply. Neither of these are justifications to look the other way for those who can find employment either way and are choosing between an $80k job and a $200k job.

3np 6y ago

To me, this rings similar to people who argue against eating animals with "but what if you're starving and alone on a deserted island?!" (and no, that's not a straw-man) I think you conflate these two things somewhat: Of course there are always extreme situations when people are left with tough decisions and have to choose between "doing the right thing" and sustaining themselves and their family. Separately, there are egotistic people who will disregard the consequences of their actions on others. For those who only care about themselves, it is hard to change things without changing incentive structures. Finally, some are just ignorant because they don't know or didn't think it through deeply. Neither of these are justifications to look the other way for those who can find employment either way and are choosing between an $80k job and a $200k job.