3 ms·
They always have the option of not working in the field. Depending on how licensing is done, it may not be unreasonable to expect people to make the decision a
by maxerickson 6y ago
They always have the option of not working in the field.
Depending on how licensing is done, it may not be unreasonable to expect people to make the decision about whether they want to work in a profession with state requirements for service before they enter the profession.
Of course it's messier if the requirements change after they have invested the time to become licensed, but it isn't that different, they shouldn't enter the regulated profession if they want autonomy.
- brandmeyer 6y agoClosely related: Should an engineer be obligated to work on weapons projects? How about weaponized machine inference? Individual practitioners within their field should have some level of autonomy, especially when it comes to ethics. I'm not willing to yank that away from someone just because their ethics disagree with mine. Same thing with consumers. Some of the reasons for avoiding GMO foods are absolutely bonkers in my opinion, but I still believe in the right of consumers to make their own choices. How would the pharma landscape change if prescription drugs were obligated to carry a label that they were developed and tested with human fetal tissue or cell cultures?
- maxerickson 6y agoProduct safety requirements are imposed on engineers. If they don't like them, the option is to not offer products. (this examines the obligations and loss of autonomy more than the ethical disagreement, but there's literally no remedy for someone that believes antilock brakes are unethical, we'd tell them to pound sand. The analogy would be better if that person existed, but I think it still works okay.)