3 ms·
I think both things can be true. A person can take the position that developing something which will be used to directly kill someone is wrong, and thus refuse
by wavemode 2y ago
I think both things can be true. A person can take the position that developing something which will be used to directly kill someone is wrong, and thus refuse such jobs. A person can also take the position that software itself is morally neutral, and how it is used is the choice of the user.
Both of these are perfectly valid lines of moral reasoning. Which one you choose is going to be a personal decision. Debating about which one is more "right" devolves into a philosophical discussion.
Does it "boggle your mind" that some people choose to be vegetarians?
- zahlman 2y agoThe point is that "which will be" is load-bearing. The idea that someone would feel moral qualms about how software is used by the military is incongruous with signing up for the job in the first place. The military does in fact do a lot of things that are not killing people, and presumably could also find a use for the technology described that does not involve killing people. Like, say, locating allies for a rescue effort.
- petsfed 2y agoI'll also say that there's a huge difference between IT specialist in the military and Tier 1 Special Forces Operator. One may facilitate killing, but its not a core competency, and you can spend an entire enlistment term doing absolutely nothing that might suggest your relation to a lethal machine; indeed you can do your job and never think about what you might be facilitating. The other exists to kill, and occasionally explicitly murder, and failing to make peace with that reality makes them less effective at their job. Both are ultimately necessary. I understood the article as reminding folks to actually think about what you might be facilitating, and make your choices accordingly.