3 ms·

It might be a bit extreme, but I think if you actually have a high moral standard, you should join defense industry. This way you minimize the chance that someo

It might be a bit extreme, but I think if you actually have a high moral standard, you should join defense industry. This way you minimize the chance that someone with a lower moral standard taking that job.

NetOpWibby 2y ago
I agree with this take. My issue is, I don’t want to deal with the knowledge of my contributions leading to the death of other people (unless of course, the enemy was pdf files). I can be sure of my own moral standing but I’m part of a team. My boss, their boss, THEIR boss, &c, leading up to the president? I cannot speak for them and often disagree. It’s just a murky sea of gray. Props to those who have the stomach for these dilemmas.
shiroiushi 2y ago
I've worked in defense, and I don't really see how it matters either way. If you're just a programmer, you have absolutely no control over how your creation is used, and really not much control over what project you work on even (aside from picking and choosing your employer). Your own moral standards aren't going to affect anything as far as I can tell. I suppose if you refuse to work on, for instance, land mines because you think they should all be banned due to the effects they have long after a conflict is over, they'll just find someone else to do that work. This could be bad for your continued employment, but more likely they'll just move you to some other project you don't have such moral qualms with, because skilled engineers with a security clearance are hard to find and expensive to get a clearance for. Anyway, your own moral standards aren't somehow going to magically make your weapons system only useful for just causes.
- raincole 2y ago
  Snowden was just a contractor but his moral standard definitely affected the decision he made. Did it actually make a difference to the grand scheme? Was it even worth it? Well I don't know.
  - meheleventyone 2y ago
    The parent is talking about the ability to affect change in the defense industry 'from within' as an individual whereas Snowden was a whistleblower which is quite a bit different.
taurath 2y ago
Here is where I’d point out the other central point of the article which is that systemic problems need systemic change, not heroes - if it were possible to be an individual hero, you’d see a lot more change because there’s tons of good people who would absolutely take such opportunities.
somenameforme 2y ago
Look at companies like Google. Their overall ethos has next to nothing to do with their employees' ethos. The same is true of the military. If you want to speak to some of the most anti-war and even anti-establishment people imaginable, then speak with vets. Their positioning doesn't change the military in any way, shape, or fashion. All it really does is stop them from being promoted to the levels where they actually could do something, so you're basically entering into a career where you must either sacrifice your values, or just play your role as a cog in a machine of destruction, far more for the sake of geopolitics than any notion of actual "defense."

NetOpWibby 2y ago

I agree with this take. My issue is, I don’t want to deal with the knowledge of my contributions leading to the death of other people (unless of course, the enemy was pdf files). I can be sure of my own moral standing but I’m part of a team. My boss, their boss, THEIR boss, &c, leading up to the president? I cannot speak for them and often disagree. It’s just a murky sea of gray. Props to those who have the stomach for these dilemmas.

shiroiushi 2y ago

I've worked in defense, and I don't really see how it matters either way. If you're just a programmer, you have absolutely no control over how your creation is used, and really not much control over what project you work on even (aside from picking and choosing your employer). Your own moral standards aren't going to affect anything as far as I can tell. I suppose if you refuse to work on, for instance, land mines because you think they should all be banned due to the effects they have long after a conflict is over, they'll just find someone else to do that work. This could be bad for your continued employment, but more likely they'll just move you to some other project you don't have such moral qualms with, because skilled engineers with a security clearance are hard to find and expensive to get a clearance for. Anyway, your own moral standards aren't somehow going to magically make your weapons system only useful for just causes.

raincole 2y ago
Snowden was just a contractor but his moral standard definitely affected the decision he made. Did it actually make a difference to the grand scheme? Was it even worth it? Well I don't know.
- meheleventyone 2y ago
  The parent is talking about the ability to affect change in the defense industry 'from within' as an individual whereas Snowden was a whistleblower which is quite a bit different.

taurath 2y ago

Here is where I’d point out the other central point of the article which is that systemic problems need systemic change, not heroes - if it were possible to be an individual hero, you’d see a lot more change because there’s tons of good people who would absolutely take such opportunities.

somenameforme 2y ago

Look at companies like Google. Their overall ethos has next to nothing to do with their employees' ethos. The same is true of the military. If you want to speak to some of the most anti-war and even anti-establishment people imaginable, then speak with vets. Their positioning doesn't change the military in any way, shape, or fashion. All it really does is stop them from being promoted to the levels where they actually could do something, so you're basically entering into a career where you must either sacrifice your values, or just play your role as a cog in a machine of destruction, far more for the sake of geopolitics than any notion of actual "defense."