3 ms·

I wonder how the doctor justified m this to themselves.

sidewndr46 2y ago
Your question assumes the thought ever crossed their mind. It may have not.
soco 2y ago
How do software developers justify creation of weapons intelligence? Or of computer viruses? Or of targeted surveillance?
- n4r9 2y ago
  > targeted surveillance This one is really interesting. I thought a lot about it after the revelations that Uber were targeting law enforcement based on user behaviour, and refusing to offer them rides in areas where they were breaking regulations. Of course, one option is that the developers were fully aware of what they were doing, and were perhaps motivated by money or some sort of libertarian ideology. The other option - more compelling in my mind - is that this functionality was carefully broken down into innocuous pieces and distributed on a need-to-know basis. One feature which groups users in configurable ways based on their history. Another feature that allows on-the-fly ride prioritisation based on user groups. Another feature that localises prioritisation to geographic areas. The upshot is that only some managers knew what the full potential of the functionality was.
  - Traubenfuchs 2y ago
    Why would you NOT help the company you are working for thrive with a task like that? Assuming you don't do anything that would be a personal legal risk. It would be masochistic.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      If you knew that your employer was knowingly and deliberately flouting national or state regulations, and they asked you to put surveillance tech in place to prevent law enforcement from finding out, you would happily comply if there was no personal risk?
      - Traubenfuchs 2y ago
        > put surveillance tech in place to prevent law enforcement from finding out That idea is so exciting to me, I'd volunteer to be part of that project, ESPECIALLY > if there was no personal risk
        n4r9 2y ago
        Interesting. Can you give any examples - short of physically hurting people - of tasks you'd refuse to do on ethical grounds?
        Traubenfuchs 2y ago
        I can‘t imagine doing (clearly harmful) medical experiments without consent. And nothing that would harm a group I belong to or support. I generally wouldn‘t find pleasure in working on things that make people I have nothing against more miserable. It‘s a very broad question. Really depends on a case by case basis. I think I just really don‘t care about ethics at all, just my personal feelings.
- Traubenfuchs 2y ago
  It pays well and gives you the certainty of your code having some heavy impact across borders, often against the kind of people you don't like as well.
- ericmcer 2y ago
  Developers can't physically see the people that will be effected and they are usually just following orders from managers. It is shitty but it is way easier to know a bomb you were ordered to make is blowing people up on the other side of the world than it is to shoot someone directly in front of you.
- PeterisP 2y ago
  There's a sufficient number of people personally doing targeted surveillance or pulling the trigger on weapons - and I'd assume that the barrier for building the tools for something is even lower than doing that yourself.
DoreenMichele 2y ago
Some people don't have a moral compass. "Oh, look! Interesting opportunity to entertain myself in the name of furthering medicine while power tripping because I have so much more schooling than my idiot patients!"
andai 2y ago
I think that in the belief system of utilitarianism, if one believes an action will save more lives than it costs, then it is justified? (Not sure if that's what went on in their heads though.) If the calculus leans heavily in one direction, then arguably one is killing people by not taking that action (by preventing their lives from being saved). (In my opinion this article represents a pretty compelling counterargument to that philosophy...)
- drdeca 2y ago
  Well, if the action produces "more utility". Lives is one measure, but, while "lives saved - lives lost" will probably play a role in most ways of defining "utility", I don't think most utilitarians would have it by itself as what they consider to be "utility"? (I'm not a utilitarian, or even a consequentialist, I just want to be fair.) A utilitarian may also consider things like, "likely impacts on public trust in medicine" and what effects that is likely to cause, when considering how an action might influence "total utility".

Your question assumes the thought ever crossed their mind. It may have not.

soco 2y ago

How do software developers justify creation of weapons intelligence? Or of computer viruses? Or of targeted surveillance?

n4r9 2y ago
> targeted surveillance This one is really interesting. I thought a lot about it after the revelations that Uber were targeting law enforcement based on user behaviour, and refusing to offer them rides in areas where they were breaking regulations. Of course, one option is that the developers were fully aware of what they were doing, and were perhaps motivated by money or some sort of libertarian ideology. The other option - more compelling in my mind - is that this functionality was carefully broken down into innocuous pieces and distributed on a need-to-know basis. One feature which groups users in configurable ways based on their history. Another feature that allows on-the-fly ride prioritisation based on user groups. Another feature that localises prioritisation to geographic areas. The upshot is that only some managers knew what the full potential of the functionality was.
- Traubenfuchs 2y ago
  Why would you NOT help the company you are working for thrive with a task like that? Assuming you don't do anything that would be a personal legal risk. It would be masochistic.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    If you knew that your employer was knowingly and deliberately flouting national or state regulations, and they asked you to put surveillance tech in place to prevent law enforcement from finding out, you would happily comply if there was no personal risk?
    - Traubenfuchs 2y ago
      > put surveillance tech in place to prevent law enforcement from finding out That idea is so exciting to me, I'd volunteer to be part of that project, ESPECIALLY > if there was no personal risk
      - n4r9 2y ago
        Interesting. Can you give any examples - short of physically hurting people - of tasks you'd refuse to do on ethical grounds?
        Traubenfuchs 2y ago
        I can‘t imagine doing (clearly harmful) medical experiments without consent. And nothing that would harm a group I belong to or support. I generally wouldn‘t find pleasure in working on things that make people I have nothing against more miserable. It‘s a very broad question. Really depends on a case by case basis. I think I just really don‘t care about ethics at all, just my personal feelings.
Traubenfuchs 2y ago
It pays well and gives you the certainty of your code having some heavy impact across borders, often against the kind of people you don't like as well.
ericmcer 2y ago
Developers can't physically see the people that will be effected and they are usually just following orders from managers. It is shitty but it is way easier to know a bomb you were ordered to make is blowing people up on the other side of the world than it is to shoot someone directly in front of you.
PeterisP 2y ago
There's a sufficient number of people personally doing targeted surveillance or pulling the trigger on weapons - and I'd assume that the barrier for building the tools for something is even lower than doing that yourself.

DoreenMichele 2y ago

Some people don't have a moral compass. "Oh, look! Interesting opportunity to entertain myself in the name of furthering medicine while power tripping because I have so much more schooling than my idiot patients!"

andai 2y ago

I think that in the belief system of utilitarianism, if one believes an action will save more lives than it costs, then it is justified? (Not sure if that's what went on in their heads though.) If the calculus leans heavily in one direction, then arguably one is killing people by not taking that action (by preventing their lives from being saved). (In my opinion this article represents a pretty compelling counterargument to that philosophy...)

drdeca 2y ago
Well, if the action produces "more utility". Lives is one measure, but, while "lives saved - lives lost" will probably play a role in most ways of defining "utility", I don't think most utilitarians would have it by itself as what they consider to be "utility"? (I'm not a utilitarian, or even a consequentialist, I just want to be fair.) A utilitarian may also consider things like, "likely impacts on public trust in medicine" and what effects that is likely to cause, when considering how an action might influence "total utility".