3 ms·
This sort of moral principle is easy to apply in extreme scenarios, but most decisions are not so clear cut: a lot of engineers don’t have complete agency in ch
by jl6 4y ago
This sort of moral principle is easy to apply in extreme scenarios, but most decisions are not so clear cut: a lot of engineers don’t have complete agency in choosing where they work, and a lot of engineers work on dual-use technology with plausible ethical use. As an example, if we assume Facebook is 100% evil (debatable but let’s go with it), then did the developers of React act unethically because their work furthered Facebook’s goals, or ethically because React is morally neutral (or even positive, as Free software) and it was other engineers who put it to evil uses?
And furthermore, even nuclear bombs had a plausible ethical use (end the war sooner).
- dragontamer 4y agoHow hard is it for a React.js developer to find a new job elsewhere? If Facebook is 100% evil, then it behooves the workers to work for a less evil company, at a minimum. Of course, Facebook itself isn't 100% evil so things break down in your example. If you're a React.js developer and you're worried about internet privacy, intrusive ad-tech being used to track people (etc. etc.), then maybe... just maybe... you should find something else to work on in a company that matches your ethics better.
- spurgu 4y agoOnly siths deal in extremes. No company is 100% evil. But given you are the guy who brought up the "racist bridge" analogy I'm not surprised.
- g42gregory 4y agoJust point out that the siths don't exist and we are not in the Hollywood movie. The reason I wanted to point this out is that Hollywood provides an extremely distorted view on the society and a lot of people are using it as reference frame as if it's something real. Having said that, I agree with the poster that no company is 100% evil. It's a good point.
- matkoniecz 4y ago> And furthermore, even nuclear bombs had a plausible ethical use (end the war sooner). Some things have no real ethical use. At least in some cases inventors are unethical to invent some things.
- jl6 4y agoSure, and those are what I think are the extreme scenarios. What I’m saying is that nearly all scenarios are not so extreme and not so easy to judge.
- matkoniecz 4y agoI would consider working on improving spyware for adtech as similar "definitely evil", though with massively smaller impact. Or working on better ads for scammers. Or trying to invent legal loophole to enable something evil.
- spurgu 4y agoOr giving an edge to the small player in the field with a better product trying to get it to the masses.
- matkoniecz 4y agoI would not treat it as self-evidently evil.
- spurgu 4y agoThat was my point.
- spurgu 4y agoThis is why I brought up the atomic bomb as an example - nuclear fission has excellent non-warfare use cases. Creating a "racist bomb" would be a stupid example.
- dragontamer 4y agoI think I can safely call the gas chambers the Nazi created as intended to be an anti-semitic weapon. Could they have been used in another manner? Yes. But we all know what the intent was, and any engineer who worked on that project knew damn well what was going on.