7 ms·

I strongly agree with this sentiment. However, it is hard for an ethical person to participate in developing war technology when possession and usage of the wea

by marvin 5y ago

I strongly agree with this sentiment. However, it is hard for an ethical person to participate in developing war technology when possession and usage of the weapons is purely a political question, and history also has seen our side of geopolitics commit atrocities. My stance has previously been that I am unwilling to work on weapons technology, because history has shown that these weapons sometimes end up being used for an indefensible cause. Then all of a sudden you're an accomplice to murder, and getting away with it. In the light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which is just a continuation of its historical imperialism, working on weapons is something I would be perfectly okay with and probably even motivated to do. But stop for a moment and think what a history of aggressive military actions does to our society's ability to recruit for this important job.

gonehome 5y ago
Like anything difficult there are real risks and trade-offs, but just refusing to engage in difficult pragmatic issues is not the ethical position imo, it's just the easy one that feels good. It puts the burden of actual complex ethical decisions onto other people. The west needs the capability to defend the ideals of classical liberalism and individual liberty. In order to do that it needs a strong military capability. https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html
- gtirloni 5y ago
  By your logic, engaging in weapon manufacturing is the only accepted conclusion. In fact, people that refuse to do so are participating just fine, even though you don't agree with their contribution.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    My logic is that refusing to engage is not an ethically superior position when the capability is necessary. Engaging in difficult, high-risk, but necessary issues as best you can is. That doesn't mean everyone needs to work on weapons, just that the work on weapons is necessary and those that do it are not ethically compromised in some way. It's just a recognition of this without pretending not engaging is somehow more morally pure. Not engaging is just removing yourself from dealing with the actual hard ethical issues.
  - chasd00 5y ago
    an interesting thought given the politics of the day. If you are not actively engaged in weapon manufacturing are you not complicit in the murder of the Ukrainian people? If you are not actively helping to supply the Ukraine army with weapons for their defense then, by your inaction, are you enabling their death?
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> It puts the burden of actual complex ethical decisions onto other people. People who may not have even considered the ethical situation. It seems the people who are concerned about the ethics or morality of a necessary but questionable job are exactly the ones you want in that role (although not activists who would try to shut it down entirely).
gtirloni 5y ago
You can be happily manufacturing weapons for a good cause today only to see your government turn evil the next day. Unfortunately people don't cluster around ideas but geography and that's is out of control for most. This does not mean we shouldn't do something but we have to realize nothing is permanent and the fruits of our labor can very well be misused the next day.
starwind 5y ago
I was a reviewer for a book on ethical machine learning that wasn’t published. I’ll never forget, the author stated “don’t work on anything that could cause harm.” Here I am reading this while working in defense being like “that’s a lazy and dumb position.” Nearly anything in the wrong hands could cause harm. It’s not unethical to work in the auto industry because people can die in car accidents. It’s not unethical to work in the beer business because people can become alcoholics. It’s not unethical to work for a credit card company because people can bury themselves in debt. And it’s not unethical to work in defense because the weapons may fall into the wrong hands. What’s unethical is encouraging these problems and not trying to prevent them. And yeah, it’s hard to navigate these ethical issues, but we’re professionals like doctors and lawyers and part of the reason we get paid like we do is because we may have to wrestle with these issues.
- marvin 5y ago
  I'm not sure I've sufficiently communicated the background of my moral ambiguity here. I came of age during the War on Terror; the years where Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria were the primary fronts for Western military power. The brutal necessity of the Western world standing up to aggression against dictatorships was not so obvious during these years; from my vantage point of Western media the impression was that dirt-poor suicide bombers were the biggest risk to our civilization. And we were dealing with those with an aggression that at best left a dubious aftertaste. One could be excused during these two decades for erroneously assuming that the world has for the foreseeable future moved on towards trade and economic competition, rather than wars of aggression. With nuclear weapons ensuring the balance. It was probably naïve, but not helplessly naïve. Against this backdrop, regularly seeing weddings and maybe-civilians bombed from drones on dubious intel, it doesn't seem like a childish or cowardly stance to just turn one's back on the weapons industry. I'd call that a reflected decision. The same reasoning is almost palpable in European politics, which made a 180 degree shift away from this in the two weeks after Putin dispelled these notions. My point is, it wasn't obvious from where I stood that we would be back here today. Now that we are, the calculus seems clearer. Maybe with a more measured US-led use of military force since 2000, Western defense politics wouldn't have required so much hand-wringing.
- thethethethe 5y ago

by marvin 5y ago

gonehome 5y ago

Like anything difficult there are real risks and trade-offs, but just refusing to engage in difficult pragmatic issues is not the ethical position imo, it's just the easy one that feels good. It puts the burden of actual complex ethical decisions onto other people. The west needs the capability to defend the ideals of classical liberalism and individual liberty. In order to do that it needs a strong military capability. https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html

gtirloni 5y ago
By your logic, engaging in weapon manufacturing is the only accepted conclusion. In fact, people that refuse to do so are participating just fine, even though you don't agree with their contribution.
- gonehome 5y ago
  My logic is that refusing to engage is not an ethically superior position when the capability is necessary. Engaging in difficult, high-risk, but necessary issues as best you can is. That doesn't mean everyone needs to work on weapons, just that the work on weapons is necessary and those that do it are not ethically compromised in some way. It's just a recognition of this without pretending not engaging is somehow more morally pure. Not engaging is just removing yourself from dealing with the actual hard ethical issues.
- chasd00 5y ago
  an interesting thought given the politics of the day. If you are not actively engaged in weapon manufacturing are you not complicit in the murder of the Ukrainian people? If you are not actively helping to supply the Ukraine army with weapons for their defense then, by your inaction, are you enabling their death?
phkahler 5y ago
>> It puts the burden of actual complex ethical decisions onto other people. People who may not have even considered the ethical situation. It seems the people who are concerned about the ethics or morality of a necessary but questionable job are exactly the ones you want in that role (although not activists who would try to shut it down entirely).

gtirloni 5y ago

You can be happily manufacturing weapons for a good cause today only to see your government turn evil the next day. Unfortunately people don't cluster around ideas but geography and that's is out of control for most. This does not mean we shouldn't do something but we have to realize nothing is permanent and the fruits of our labor can very well be misused the next day.

starwind 5y ago

I was a reviewer for a book on ethical machine learning that wasn’t published. I’ll never forget, the author stated “don’t work on anything that could cause harm.” Here I am reading this while working in defense being like “that’s a lazy and dumb position.” Nearly anything in the wrong hands could cause harm. It’s not unethical to work in the auto industry because people can die in car accidents. It’s not unethical to work in the beer business because people can become alcoholics. It’s not unethical to work for a credit card company because people can bury themselves in debt. And it’s not unethical to work in defense because the weapons may fall into the wrong hands. What’s unethical is encouraging these problems and not trying to prevent them. And yeah, it’s hard to navigate these ethical issues, but we’re professionals like doctors and lawyers and part of the reason we get paid like we do is because we may have to wrestle with these issues.

marvin 5y ago
I'm not sure I've sufficiently communicated the background of my moral ambiguity here. I came of age during the War on Terror; the years where Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria were the primary fronts for Western military power. The brutal necessity of the Western world standing up to aggression against dictatorships was not so obvious during these years; from my vantage point of Western media the impression was that dirt-poor suicide bombers were the biggest risk to our civilization. And we were dealing with those with an aggression that at best left a dubious aftertaste. One could be excused during these two decades for erroneously assuming that the world has for the foreseeable future moved on towards trade and economic competition, rather than wars of aggression. With nuclear weapons ensuring the balance. It was probably naïve, but not helplessly naïve. Against this backdrop, regularly seeing weddings and maybe-civilians bombed from drones on dubious intel, it doesn't seem like a childish or cowardly stance to just turn one's back on the weapons industry. I'd call that a reflected decision. The same reasoning is almost palpable in European politics, which made a 180 degree shift away from this in the two weeks after Putin dispelled these notions. My point is, it wasn't obvious from where I stood that we would be back here today. Now that we are, the calculus seems clearer. Maybe with a more measured US-led use of military force since 2000, Western defense politics wouldn't have required so much hand-wringing.
thethethethe 5y ago