6 ms·

In the 80s Ted Kosky, a math instructor at South Seattle Community College, suggested to me that if ethical people refused to work for defense companies, then t

by a3n 5y ago

In the 80s Ted Kosky, a math instructor at South Seattle Community College, suggested to me that if ethical people refused to work for defense companies, then those companies would only be staffed by unethical people. Come at that thought from any direction you like.

yeaman1231 5y ago
The subtext being that defense companies are inherently unethical? Tell that to the Bosniacs, Iraqis who lost everything due to ISIS and were pushed back with coalition air cover help, Kuwait's existence today... etc (and this is coming from an Iraqi) The HackerNews "Defense Company Bad" trope doesn't hold up to reality as much as HN likes to believe. Life's not as black and white as you might think
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  As they alluded to, there's a few ways to interpret the statement. Another corollary would be to say that ethical people have a moral obligation to work for defense companies, so that someone less ethical doesn't get the job.
  - a3n 5y ago
    That was essentially Kosky's point. I was taking his class, he was a big peacenik (involved with Give Peace a Dance at the time), and I talked to him about working for defense companies, Boeing being the gorilla in the room in Seattle. And so he said that thing, which sticks with me still. I saw a headline saying that we should treat Google as a "public good." You could at least think of all corporations as public goods. And so there's an argument to be made that society and its individuals have the right and responsibility to ensure their health and fitness for purpose. Someone has to work at the waste treatment plant.
  - yeaman1231 5y ago
    M bad, the only takes I could think of when reading the comment where the ones I usually hear in the echo chamber im in. edit: elaborating on the point
- nickik 5y ago
  Defense companies also spend millions in lobbying both directly and threw a whole network of think tanks and people. People with very strong association with those very defense companies both inside and outside of government were very strong driver in lying the US into war in Iraq in the first place and made ISIS possible in the first place. They have a significant part in lobbying for war, for weapons export, for more spending on military spending and so on. Defense companies also strongly coordinate with Israel and the Israel lobby to make sure continuous money flows to Israel and Israel can be a first class buyer of US weapons. They have strong ties to government and make absurd amount of money on many of these projects despite routinely going over budget by absolutely insane amounts. Yes, companies that build weapons to some extend need to exist but the defense contractors are not ethical in the least and I would not work for them. Maybe in the civilian part of the company, possibly but even that would require a lot of thinking.
  - a3n 5y ago
    And I sincerely appreciate your doing some of that thinking here, out loud.
  - yeaman1231 5y ago
    > Defense companies also spend millions in lobbying both directly and threw a whole network of think tanks and people. People with very strong association with those very defense companies both inside and outside of government were very strong driver in lying the US into war in Iraq in the first place and made ISIS possible in the first place. Agree to most of the point, but note that AQI predates the 2003 Iraqi war (founded in late 90s) > They have a significant part in lobbying for war, for weapons export, for more spending on military spending and so on. Also agreed, for good or bad (I would say mainly good) > Defense companies also strongly coordinate with Israel and the Israel lobby to make sure continuous money flows to Israel and Israel can be a first class buyer of US weapons. That goes both ways, Israel is one of our main partners in defense (and related) research, they are also the US's main ally in the Middle East, Allies trade is nothing new? > They have strong ties to government and make absurd amount of money on many of these projects despite routinely going over budget by absolutely insane amounts. Yep, there is a certain culture in those companies that tends to... encourage that behavior. And the lobbying makes that space harder to get into > Yes, companies that build weapons to some extend need to exist but the defense contractors are not ethical in the least and I would not work for them. Maybe in the civilian part of the company, possibly but even that would require a lot of thinking. If you want to extend the ethical thinking train, the only companies you can work for are the ones that operate on a mom-and-pop shop scale and there is nothing wrong with that. Applying that critical lens to only defense contractors (not that you are doing right now) is a bit disingenuous
- snypher 5y ago
  I wonder where ISIS gets it's weapons? Surprise, it's from the ""defense"" companies. https://www.wired.com/story/terror-industrial-complex-isis-munitions-supply-chain https://www.wired.com/story/terror-industrial-complex-isis-m... https://www.amnesty.org.uk/how-isis-islamic-state-isil-got-its-weapons-iraq-syria https://www.amnesty.org.uk/how-isis-islamic-state-isil-got-i...
  - AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
    Yeah, US companies make a lot of defense items, but it's not as if Raytheon is selling to ISIS.
  - yeaman1231 5y ago
    Please continue reading the articles past their headlines. Some more context, this has been an elections issue in Iraq since 2014, people who blame irresponsible chain of command (Everyone besides the Maliki faction) and people who blame sectarianism and scapegoat others (Maliki and his friends) For those who dont want to read more into the articles, this is a good summary "Decades of free-flowing arms into Iraq meant that when IS took control of these areas, they were like children in a sweetshop."
  - some_random 5y ago
    It's funny how often I see people talk about the US arming ISIS, then posting articles about how ISIS was armed with captured weapons some of which was US in origin as if that supports their point at all. And it's especially beside the point because ISIS only ever had small arms, some light weapons, and captured vehicles. None of the complicated weapon systems that the these defense companies produce as their bread and butter. There are plenty of things to criticize them on, but acting like they profited off captured ISIS humvees and M4s is absurd.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
taurath 5y ago
Otherwise ethical people tend not to think ethically when their paycheck depends on it. Sit and listen to how excited people are for the next privacy destroying product for a year and you might have a good chance of thinking it’s for the greater good.
- zeven7 5y ago
  not everybody values privacy as the highest good
rixed 5y ago
Maybe there are not so much ethical or unethical persons, as there are ethical or unethical positions?
lallysingh 5y ago
And other the ethical people bias progress towards ethical industries. As unethical people won't care whether their employer is ethical, the ethical companies have a larger labor pool to draw from. Perhaps even stronger if the ethical folks are in-demand enough to have choices in where they work.
makeitdouble 5y ago
It looks to me like the same argument for trying to change groups from within: you need to be part of the machine to raise to a position where you can make it move the way you want. There is surely a lot of possible shades of that, but clearly there are domains where it's not a viable approach. We've seen for instance that changing the police culture from within seems like a dead end. Arguably I wouldn't be sure defense is more open to change. Sometimes external pressure has a better chance to bring change, and working from the outside to have an impact on that could be as effective depending on the field.
- ganafagol 5y ago
  One needs to keep that approach in mind when judging people who are within a system that one as an outsider critizises. There may be people in there who try to change it for the better. A historical example is the French Revolution. Many people who tried to reform from within still got their heads chopped off. In fact, everybody but the most radical did, and even those ended up paranoid about one another. Other examples are former socialist eastern countries. Just because somebody was state employed with decision making authority does not mean they were pro-dictatorship. Many realized that to improve things they'd need to work within the system instead of openly opposing and ending up in jail.
streblo 5y ago
Let me know when you figure out who is ethical and who is not

by a3n 5y ago

yeaman1231 5y ago

The subtext being that defense companies are inherently unethical? Tell that to the Bosniacs, Iraqis who lost everything due to ISIS and were pushed back with coalition air cover help, Kuwait's existence today... etc (and this is coming from an Iraqi) The HackerNews "Defense Company Bad" trope doesn't hold up to reality as much as HN likes to believe. Life's not as black and white as you might think

Rebelgecko 5y ago
As they alluded to, there's a few ways to interpret the statement. Another corollary would be to say that ethical people have a moral obligation to work for defense companies, so that someone less ethical doesn't get the job.
- a3n 5y ago
  That was essentially Kosky's point. I was taking his class, he was a big peacenik (involved with Give Peace a Dance at the time), and I talked to him about working for defense companies, Boeing being the gorilla in the room in Seattle. And so he said that thing, which sticks with me still. I saw a headline saying that we should treat Google as a "public good." You could at least think of all corporations as public goods. And so there's an argument to be made that society and its individuals have the right and responsibility to ensure their health and fitness for purpose. Someone has to work at the waste treatment plant.
- yeaman1231 5y ago
  M bad, the only takes I could think of when reading the comment where the ones I usually hear in the echo chamber im in. edit: elaborating on the point
nickik 5y ago
Defense companies also spend millions in lobbying both directly and threw a whole network of think tanks and people. People with very strong association with those very defense companies both inside and outside of government were very strong driver in lying the US into war in Iraq in the first place and made ISIS possible in the first place. They have a significant part in lobbying for war, for weapons export, for more spending on military spending and so on. Defense companies also strongly coordinate with Israel and the Israel lobby to make sure continuous money flows to Israel and Israel can be a first class buyer of US weapons. They have strong ties to government and make absurd amount of money on many of these projects despite routinely going over budget by absolutely insane amounts. Yes, companies that build weapons to some extend need to exist but the defense contractors are not ethical in the least and I would not work for them. Maybe in the civilian part of the company, possibly but even that would require a lot of thinking.
- a3n 5y ago
  And I sincerely appreciate your doing some of that thinking here, out loud.
- yeaman1231 5y ago
  > Defense companies also spend millions in lobbying both directly and threw a whole network of think tanks and people. People with very strong association with those very defense companies both inside and outside of government were very strong driver in lying the US into war in Iraq in the first place and made ISIS possible in the first place. Agree to most of the point, but note that AQI predates the 2003 Iraqi war (founded in late 90s) > They have a significant part in lobbying for war, for weapons export, for more spending on military spending and so on. Also agreed, for good or bad (I would say mainly good) > Defense companies also strongly coordinate with Israel and the Israel lobby to make sure continuous money flows to Israel and Israel can be a first class buyer of US weapons. That goes both ways, Israel is one of our main partners in defense (and related) research, they are also the US's main ally in the Middle East, Allies trade is nothing new? > They have strong ties to government and make absurd amount of money on many of these projects despite routinely going over budget by absolutely insane amounts. Yep, there is a certain culture in those companies that tends to... encourage that behavior. And the lobbying makes that space harder to get into > Yes, companies that build weapons to some extend need to exist but the defense contractors are not ethical in the least and I would not work for them. Maybe in the civilian part of the company, possibly but even that would require a lot of thinking. If you want to extend the ethical thinking train, the only companies you can work for are the ones that operate on a mom-and-pop shop scale and there is nothing wrong with that. Applying that critical lens to only defense contractors (not that you are doing right now) is a bit disingenuous
snypher 5y ago
I wonder where ISIS gets it's weapons? Surprise, it's from the ""defense"" companies. https://www.wired.com/story/terror-industrial-complex-isis-munitions-supply-chain https://www.wired.com/story/terror-industrial-complex-isis-m... https://www.amnesty.org.uk/how-isis-islamic-state-isil-got-its-weapons-iraq-syria https://www.amnesty.org.uk/how-isis-islamic-state-isil-got-i...
- AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
  Yeah, US companies make a lot of defense items, but it's not as if Raytheon is selling to ISIS.
- yeaman1231 5y ago
  Please continue reading the articles past their headlines. Some more context, this has been an elections issue in Iraq since 2014, people who blame irresponsible chain of command (Everyone besides the Maliki faction) and people who blame sectarianism and scapegoat others (Maliki and his friends) For those who dont want to read more into the articles, this is a good summary "Decades of free-flowing arms into Iraq meant that when IS took control of these areas, they were like children in a sweetshop."
- some_random 5y ago
  It's funny how often I see people talk about the US arming ISIS, then posting articles about how ISIS was armed with captured weapons some of which was US in origin as if that supports their point at all. And it's especially beside the point because ISIS only ever had small arms, some light weapons, and captured vehicles. None of the complicated weapon systems that the these defense companies produce as their bread and butter. There are plenty of things to criticize them on, but acting like they profited off captured ISIS humvees and M4s is absurd.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

taurath 5y ago

Otherwise ethical people tend not to think ethically when their paycheck depends on it. Sit and listen to how excited people are for the next privacy destroying product for a year and you might have a good chance of thinking it’s for the greater good.

zeven7 5y ago
not everybody values privacy as the highest good

rixed 5y ago

Maybe there are not so much ethical or unethical persons, as there are ethical or unethical positions?

lallysingh 5y ago

And other the ethical people bias progress towards ethical industries. As unethical people won't care whether their employer is ethical, the ethical companies have a larger labor pool to draw from. Perhaps even stronger if the ethical folks are in-demand enough to have choices in where they work.

makeitdouble 5y ago

It looks to me like the same argument for trying to change groups from within: you need to be part of the machine to raise to a position where you can make it move the way you want. There is surely a lot of possible shades of that, but clearly there are domains where it's not a viable approach. We've seen for instance that changing the police culture from within seems like a dead end. Arguably I wouldn't be sure defense is more open to change. Sometimes external pressure has a better chance to bring change, and working from the outside to have an impact on that could be as effective depending on the field.

ganafagol 5y ago
One needs to keep that approach in mind when judging people who are within a system that one as an outsider critizises. There may be people in there who try to change it for the better. A historical example is the French Revolution. Many people who tried to reform from within still got their heads chopped off. In fact, everybody but the most radical did, and even those ended up paranoid about one another. Other examples are former socialist eastern countries. Just because somebody was state employed with decision making authority does not mean they were pro-dictatorship. Many realized that to improve things they'd need to work within the system instead of openly opposing and ending up in jail.

streblo 5y ago

Let me know when you figure out who is ethical and who is not