5 ms·

Sure, as with all things human, there is the occasional gray area where there are no good answers, but yes I probably wouldn't work in a criminal enterprise in

Sure, as with all things human, there is the occasional gray area where there are no good answers, but yes I probably wouldn't work in a criminal enterprise in a democratic nation, whether it is about medical marijuana or not. The point is, I'll work on things as per my ethics, not some random person's ethics or a hypothetical "engineers code of conduct" or whatever as the article seems to advocate. I gave plenty of examples of software that some people would consider unethical (say drone targeting, or NSA crawling etc that TFA is about) that I would have no problem working on. My ethics are mostly in harmony with the legal systems of democratic nations. I'm sorry if that doesn't accord with your notions of what "should be".

zzzeek 13y ago
Oh well that's something different - you'll work on what you find to be personally ethical. That's absolutely fine, ethics after all are ultimately personal. Like I'd not work for Monsanto, since I find them unethical, but certainly most hackers disagree with me on that. I'm not happy about the NSA situation though I see it more as an issue of bounds being overstepped, the engineers working there don't strike me as empirically unethical.
- plinkplonk 13y ago
  I agree completely. I threw in 'legal' in the original post to head off morons chanting "so you'd work for drug dealers" etc. My only point was, to quote you, "the NSA situation ...I see it more as an issue of bounds being overstepped, the engineers working there don't strike me as empirically unethical" (well stated). I have a hard time listening to the demonizing of the NSA engineers by people who work at Google/Yahoo/Facebook/Amazon (or would like to) who build similar technology to profile users!
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    Throwing in "legal" in a discussion that pretty much revolves around that seems like a poor way to communicate. Also "drug dealers" is probably the epitome of a morally/legal ambiguous job. Purdue has no doubt eased the suffering of millions of people, yet they were still hit with felony convictions.
md224 13y ago
> The point is, I'll work on things as per my ethics I'm a bit confused... are you saying there are some jobs you wouldn't take no matter how good the salary was? You seemed to imply otherwise in your original comment.
- plinkplonk 13y ago
  oh what would we do without absolute black and white with sharp dividing lines ? Go read grellas's comment. He says it much better than I could
  - md224 13y ago
    I did read Grellas's comment, and I'm not sure why you think my question had anything to do with "absolute black and white with sharp dividing lines." In your original comment, you said: > give me enough money and challenging work, great working conditions, and I'll work for any legal company or organization, though some organizations would have to put out a great deal of money vs others The key word here is "any." You later stated that you operate by your own ethical standards, and didn't seem to disagree when zzzeek interpreted that as "you'll work on what you find to be personally ethical," so I was merely asking you to clarify if you would really work for "any" legal organization. Of course, if your ethical standard = whatever the authorities deem "legal," then your position is entirely consistent.
    - plinkplonk 13y ago
      There is a point when further nitpicking communication is not only useless, it is actually a disservice to the forum. I leave the thread to you, and bow out. Cheers, have a nice day.
      - md224 13y ago
        I honestly didn't think I was nitpicking, just trying to gain some clarity on your moral perspective. Also, in terms of grellas saying it better than you could, he specifically notes that we "ought to avoid being a proximate cause of something deemed wrong even though technically legal." This directly contradicts your comment, in which you implied that you would work for any legal organization if the money was good enough. I was merely asking if you could address this contradiction, in the spirit of provoking reasonable discussion about the intersection of money and morality. But if you feel my line of inquiry was nitpicking, then I apologize.

zzzeek 13y ago

Oh well that's something different - you'll work on what you find to be personally ethical. That's absolutely fine, ethics after all are ultimately personal. Like I'd not work for Monsanto, since I find them unethical, but certainly most hackers disagree with me on that. I'm not happy about the NSA situation though I see it more as an issue of bounds being overstepped, the engineers working there don't strike me as empirically unethical.

plinkplonk 13y ago
I agree completely. I threw in 'legal' in the original post to head off morons chanting "so you'd work for drug dealers" etc. My only point was, to quote you, "the NSA situation ...I see it more as an issue of bounds being overstepped, the engineers working there don't strike me as empirically unethical" (well stated). I have a hard time listening to the demonizing of the NSA engineers by people who work at Google/Yahoo/Facebook/Amazon (or would like to) who build similar technology to profile users!
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Throwing in "legal" in a discussion that pretty much revolves around that seems like a poor way to communicate. Also "drug dealers" is probably the epitome of a morally/legal ambiguous job. Purdue has no doubt eased the suffering of millions of people, yet they were still hit with felony convictions.

md224 13y ago

> The point is, I'll work on things as per my ethics I'm a bit confused... are you saying there are some jobs you wouldn't take no matter how good the salary was? You seemed to imply otherwise in your original comment.

plinkplonk 13y ago
oh what would we do without absolute black and white with sharp dividing lines ? Go read grellas's comment. He says it much better than I could
- md224 13y ago
  I did read Grellas's comment, and I'm not sure why you think my question had anything to do with "absolute black and white with sharp dividing lines." In your original comment, you said: > give me enough money and challenging work, great working conditions, and I'll work for any legal company or organization, though some organizations would have to put out a great deal of money vs others The key word here is "any." You later stated that you operate by your own ethical standards, and didn't seem to disagree when zzzeek interpreted that as "you'll work on what you find to be personally ethical," so I was merely asking you to clarify if you would really work for "any" legal organization. Of course, if your ethical standard = whatever the authorities deem "legal," then your position is entirely consistent.
  - plinkplonk 13y ago
    There is a point when further nitpicking communication is not only useless, it is actually a disservice to the forum. I leave the thread to you, and bow out. Cheers, have a nice day.
    - md224 13y ago
      I honestly didn't think I was nitpicking, just trying to gain some clarity on your moral perspective. Also, in terms of grellas saying it better than you could, he specifically notes that we "ought to avoid being a proximate cause of something deemed wrong even though technically legal." This directly contradicts your comment, in which you implied that you would work for any legal organization if the money was good enough. I was merely asking if you could address this contradiction, in the spirit of provoking reasonable discussion about the intersection of money and morality. But if you feel my line of inquiry was nitpicking, then I apologize.