3 ms·
Probably that blinkered commercial justifications have been shown to contribute heavily to negative outcomes, and that funding by government for military purpos
by contingencies 5y ago
Probably that blinkered commercial justifications have been shown to contribute heavily to negative outcomes, and that funding by government for military purposes is historically a key channel through which these outcomes are generated. The example of IBM during the Holocaust is given.
Yes, there are counter-examples like the internet.
In other words, engineers should consider what they may be contributing to ethically before doing so. The justifications "If I don't do it, someone else will" and "But the building blocks are already public" and so on are tired and morally invalid.
To a nontrivial extent FAANG have similar stigmas.
- overeater 5y ago> morally invalid Genuinely curious, because that sounds so definitive; so what's the way to determine whether a viewpoint is morally valid or invalid? I'm not talking about this specific example about military-commercial funding, but how to consider statements like "If I don't do it, someone else will" on its own. The justifications are forms of reasoning, so I imagine there's an overarching principle to evaluate these ways of reasoning?
- contingencies 5y agoIndeed. It's called the asshole precept, aka. "Do unto others", "Leave the world a better place", "Ahimsa", etc. Most cultures have a version of it, including agglomerating meta-traditions such as Baháʼí, which is testament to its popularity across time and space.
- overeater 5y agoThat's a great answer. I can see it that way now. Thanks.