4 ms·

Many prominent tech and science leaders have been disparaging philosophy for decades now. Not surprising that in the absence of any serious ethical thought, “ma

Many prominent tech and science leaders have been disparaging philosophy for decades now. Not surprising that in the absence of any serious ethical thought, “make money = good” is the default position.

WalterBright 8mo ago
[flagged]
- keiferski 8mo ago
  Sometimes I really don’t know how to reply to comments like these. Because they either seem to completely misunderstand the basic premise of my comment, or they deliberately focus on some tangential thing in order to make some trollish point. But I’ll reply here, and just assume my comment was somehow unclear. Do you genuinely think that putting money above any other value is an ethical way to operate in the world? I certainly don’t, virtually no ethical theory does, and the vast majority of people don’t either. This is not saying that making money is inherently a bad thing, but that placing it above every other value without question is definitely a bad thing, or at least a careless and thoughtless one. To use your example: all sorts of things are in demand but unquestionably make the world worse. Does the fact that people are willing to pay for propaganda or chemical weapons or X other negative thing somehow mean that facilitating their sale is ethical? I really don’t understand the position. I suppose there are some people out there who seriously have studied ethics and think making money is the ultimate good. It doesn’t seem like a serious position to me. But I don’t think that’s become the default position because of serious analysis, but rather the total lack of it. Which is what my comment was about: when you refuse to engage in serious philosophical thought about something, you’re just going to revert to base values like the acquisition of money and power, or some variant of that which your local system is optimizing for.
  - WalterBright 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - keiferski 8mo ago
      Then I don’t understand the point of your initial comment or what you’re trying to say.
      - pawkaman84 8mo ago
        He was trying to say that "making money in a free-market" is fundamentally linked to creating value for someone. It wasn't the 'money' word that you should have focused on, but the 'value'. On average this way of creating value bottoms-up has undoubtedly produced the largest human flourishing in the history of our species. It has unlocked human creativity and has lifted millions of people from poverty. It is the best system we have been yet able to create. If you disagree - point me to an alternative (even if theoretical). Of course, as in the case of averages, there is variance. Sure, greed, illegal money making is bad, but the total net benefit is overwhelmingly positive. I think your blind spot is that you implicitly attribute no ethical value to 'money making'. For you they're disconnected. In fact, it's the oppositve - there is a lot of ethics in money making.
        keiferski 8mo ago
        Here’s what I don’t get, and why these comments irritate me. They are just opportunities for someone to inject their ideological arguments about something that has little to do with the actual comment. I didn’t say anything about capitalism being a bad system, nor did I say making money is inherently bad. I said in the absence of ethical study, making money is treated as a default good. It seems pretty obvious to me that it isn’t a default good. I’m completely uninterested in arguing about whether the profit motive has led to good societal outcomes, because a) in general I agree with that and b) it has literally nothing to do with my comment. My original comment was just lamenting that tech leaders don’t study ethics, and therefore they just default to thinking that making money is always a good thing, no matter the consequences, no matter what values get ignored. In many situations, making money does indeed lead to good ethical situations. But my comment is about them not even bothering to ask that question in the first place. That’s all.
- nicoburns 8mo ago
  Would you consider being a contract killer (i.e. a hitman) ethical? What about being a creator of CSAM? Because those are both examples making money by providing others with what they want. And if we followed free market principles to their logical extreme then both of those would be allowed. I think most people would agree that this would not be even remotely ethical. Nor would it lead to higher living standards than a more restricted market economy.
  - WalterBright 8mo ago
    A fundamental requirement for free markets is the absence of use of force or fraud. Another is that it applies only to legally consenting adults. Both of your examples are not free market examples.
refurb 8mo ago
Your opinion seems to suggest that unless someone has the same moral view as you they must not have any morals at all? What if their morals are “I am not responsible for how my products are used?” You may not agree, but it’s a valid ethical stance to hold.
- keiferski 8mo ago
  No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level. I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.) Seems pretty straightforward to me. I think there are definitely many positions with which I disagree, but are nonetheless well-thought through and coherent. But it seems pretty clear that the people making these decisions haven’t done the work of thinking it through, and are instead just trying to maximize money. That’s my claim, at least.
  - refurb 8mo ago
    > No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level. I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.) You're not suggesting that, but then put up your own requirements for someone's ethics to be "valid". So in the end you are filtering others ethical choices by your own requirements. And your logic seems to work backwards: someone does something you disagree with based on your personal ethical view -> assume they aren't well thought out
    - keiferski 8mo ago
      My requirements for someone's ethical opinions to be "valid" are that they don't criticize the field of ethics as useless. I guess that is a "requirement" I have, but it's a pretty nitpicking, useless distinction to make. If someone criticizes the French language, but doesn't speak a word of French, sorry, but I don't have much respect for their opinion on French. And no, I don't "assume they aren't well thought out," because many of these people have explicitly said philosophy is a waste of time.
booleandilemma 8mo ago
Excellent point. Philosophy (really anything not math-related) is seen as a waste of time by most people I know in tech. You end up getting a bunch of smart but unethical or misguided people. Engineering types end up being used as pawns in wider political games. Look at all the terrorists who are engineers, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t....

WalterBright 8mo ago

[flagged]

keiferski 8mo ago
Sometimes I really don’t know how to reply to comments like these. Because they either seem to completely misunderstand the basic premise of my comment, or they deliberately focus on some tangential thing in order to make some trollish point. But I’ll reply here, and just assume my comment was somehow unclear. Do you genuinely think that putting money above any other value is an ethical way to operate in the world? I certainly don’t, virtually no ethical theory does, and the vast majority of people don’t either. This is not saying that making money is inherently a bad thing, but that placing it above every other value without question is definitely a bad thing, or at least a careless and thoughtless one. To use your example: all sorts of things are in demand but unquestionably make the world worse. Does the fact that people are willing to pay for propaganda or chemical weapons or X other negative thing somehow mean that facilitating their sale is ethical? I really don’t understand the position. I suppose there are some people out there who seriously have studied ethics and think making money is the ultimate good. It doesn’t seem like a serious position to me. But I don’t think that’s become the default position because of serious analysis, but rather the total lack of it. Which is what my comment was about: when you refuse to engage in serious philosophical thought about something, you’re just going to revert to base values like the acquisition of money and power, or some variant of that which your local system is optimizing for.
- WalterBright 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - keiferski 8mo ago
    Then I don’t understand the point of your initial comment or what you’re trying to say.
    - pawkaman84 8mo ago
      He was trying to say that "making money in a free-market" is fundamentally linked to creating value for someone. It wasn't the 'money' word that you should have focused on, but the 'value'. On average this way of creating value bottoms-up has undoubtedly produced the largest human flourishing in the history of our species. It has unlocked human creativity and has lifted millions of people from poverty. It is the best system we have been yet able to create. If you disagree - point me to an alternative (even if theoretical). Of course, as in the case of averages, there is variance. Sure, greed, illegal money making is bad, but the total net benefit is overwhelmingly positive. I think your blind spot is that you implicitly attribute no ethical value to 'money making'. For you they're disconnected. In fact, it's the oppositve - there is a lot of ethics in money making.
      - keiferski 8mo ago
        Here’s what I don’t get, and why these comments irritate me. They are just opportunities for someone to inject their ideological arguments about something that has little to do with the actual comment. I didn’t say anything about capitalism being a bad system, nor did I say making money is inherently bad. I said in the absence of ethical study, making money is treated as a default good. It seems pretty obvious to me that it isn’t a default good. I’m completely uninterested in arguing about whether the profit motive has led to good societal outcomes, because a) in general I agree with that and b) it has literally nothing to do with my comment. My original comment was just lamenting that tech leaders don’t study ethics, and therefore they just default to thinking that making money is always a good thing, no matter the consequences, no matter what values get ignored. In many situations, making money does indeed lead to good ethical situations. But my comment is about them not even bothering to ask that question in the first place. That’s all.
nicoburns 8mo ago
Would you consider being a contract killer (i.e. a hitman) ethical? What about being a creator of CSAM? Because those are both examples making money by providing others with what they want. And if we followed free market principles to their logical extreme then both of those would be allowed. I think most people would agree that this would not be even remotely ethical. Nor would it lead to higher living standards than a more restricted market economy.
- WalterBright 8mo ago
  A fundamental requirement for free markets is the absence of use of force or fraud. Another is that it applies only to legally consenting adults. Both of your examples are not free market examples.

refurb 8mo ago

Your opinion seems to suggest that unless someone has the same moral view as you they must not have any morals at all? What if their morals are “I am not responsible for how my products are used?” You may not agree, but it’s a valid ethical stance to hold.

keiferski 8mo ago
No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level. I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.) Seems pretty straightforward to me. I think there are definitely many positions with which I disagree, but are nonetheless well-thought through and coherent. But it seems pretty clear that the people making these decisions haven’t done the work of thinking it through, and are instead just trying to maximize money. That’s my claim, at least.
- refurb 8mo ago
  > No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level. I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.) You're not suggesting that, but then put up your own requirements for someone's ethics to be "valid". So in the end you are filtering others ethical choices by your own requirements. And your logic seems to work backwards: someone does something you disagree with based on your personal ethical view -> assume they aren't well thought out
  - keiferski 8mo ago
    My requirements for someone's ethical opinions to be "valid" are that they don't criticize the field of ethics as useless. I guess that is a "requirement" I have, but it's a pretty nitpicking, useless distinction to make. If someone criticizes the French language, but doesn't speak a word of French, sorry, but I don't have much respect for their opinion on French. And no, I don't "assume they aren't well thought out," because many of these people have explicitly said philosophy is a waste of time.

booleandilemma 8mo ago

Excellent point. Philosophy (really anything not math-related) is seen as a waste of time by most people I know in tech. You end up getting a bunch of smart but unethical or misguided people. Engineering types end up being used as pawns in wider political games. Look at all the terrorists who are engineers, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t....