3 ms·

> 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 w

by 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.
      - plinkplonk 13y ago
        Hey no need to apologize, it is all good. What I meant by "go read grellas' comment" was "Ignore what I wrote, Grellas says what I should have said". Yes the use of the 'legal' bit (which I threw in to keep the ravening hordes off 'but but are you saying you are ok with drug dealing/child pornography/whatever'. In my defense, it was late at night here (India) when I wrote that and it is too late to edit now. My position in my original comment was "Within the law (see below for an alternative to this clumsy phrasing), I'd probably do almost any job in software, provided I were paid enough". The "enough" might be quite high. As a thought experiment, take a sw job you'd find distasteful, and ask yourself if you'd take it if your pay was a million dollars a year. How about if it were a billion? If you are the rare human being who wouldn't work for the NSA, no matter what you were paid, then more power to you. I would gladly work for them if they rewarded me well, because I don't think the engineers at NSA are evil demons bent on world domination. By that logic, nobody should be a soldier, because the essence of that job is killing other people for dubious political causes. Yet the USA worships its service personnel ("Thank you for your service") to a far greater degree than most other countries (where being a soldier is "just" another job). Grellas of course lays all of tis this out much better than I can. "proximate cause" is the phrase I should have used, but I am not a lawyer and wasn't even aware of the phrase. So, yes I probably wouldn't work on something that has a pure unadulterated horrifying evil proximate effect( and no good aspects) to it. But that isn't saying very much since this kind of pure evil job probably doesn't exist outside a platonic ideal. I was objecting to the broadbrush sanctimony in the article, and the use of (in my mind) silly examples. The whole "legal" bit was clumsy phrasing on my part and you are right to call me out on it. Cheers,
        XODsQToxwi1eOy8 13y ago
        Well, I guess I wouldn't work for the NSA no matter what (well, it depends on the specific job, of course, they might actually have some positions that are not ethically questionable, after all), and there is one important reason why pay cannot compensate for it: The effects are not just on others, but also affect myself, so that's a cost that I have to subtract from the pay. A society with complete surveillance removes everything from life that makes it worth living, for everyone, including myself, and you can not buy that back, so money would be worthless as compensation. I think a common misconception is that ethics are somehow something that you obey for others to gain from it. A concensus of behaving ethically creates wealth for everyone, including yourself. It's not that we do not commonly mug other people in the street because we don't want to have their money, but because a society where you can expect to not be mugged is just so much nicer to live in, so that is a value in itself. The only problem with that is that society can support some free riders, and so there is some motivation to be the free rider.

by md224 13y ago

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.
    - plinkplonk 13y ago
      Hey no need to apologize, it is all good. What I meant by "go read grellas' comment" was "Ignore what I wrote, Grellas says what I should have said". Yes the use of the 'legal' bit (which I threw in to keep the ravening hordes off 'but but are you saying you are ok with drug dealing/child pornography/whatever'. In my defense, it was late at night here (India) when I wrote that and it is too late to edit now. My position in my original comment was "Within the law (see below for an alternative to this clumsy phrasing), I'd probably do almost any job in software, provided I were paid enough". The "enough" might be quite high. As a thought experiment, take a sw job you'd find distasteful, and ask yourself if you'd take it if your pay was a million dollars a year. How about if it were a billion? If you are the rare human being who wouldn't work for the NSA, no matter what you were paid, then more power to you. I would gladly work for them if they rewarded me well, because I don't think the engineers at NSA are evil demons bent on world domination. By that logic, nobody should be a soldier, because the essence of that job is killing other people for dubious political causes. Yet the USA worships its service personnel ("Thank you for your service") to a far greater degree than most other countries (where being a soldier is "just" another job). Grellas of course lays all of tis this out much better than I can. "proximate cause" is the phrase I should have used, but I am not a lawyer and wasn't even aware of the phrase. So, yes I probably wouldn't work on something that has a pure unadulterated horrifying evil proximate effect( and no good aspects) to it. But that isn't saying very much since this kind of pure evil job probably doesn't exist outside a platonic ideal. I was objecting to the broadbrush sanctimony in the article, and the use of (in my mind) silly examples. The whole "legal" bit was clumsy phrasing on my part and you are right to call me out on it. Cheers,
      - XODsQToxwi1eOy8 13y ago
        Well, I guess I wouldn't work for the NSA no matter what (well, it depends on the specific job, of course, they might actually have some positions that are not ethically questionable, after all), and there is one important reason why pay cannot compensate for it: The effects are not just on others, but also affect myself, so that's a cost that I have to subtract from the pay. A society with complete surveillance removes everything from life that makes it worth living, for everyone, including myself, and you can not buy that back, so money would be worthless as compensation. I think a common misconception is that ethics are somehow something that you obey for others to gain from it. A concensus of behaving ethically creates wealth for everyone, including yourself. It's not that we do not commonly mug other people in the street because we don't want to have their money, but because a society where you can expect to not be mugged is just so much nicer to live in, so that is a value in itself. The only problem with that is that society can support some free riders, and so there is some motivation to be the free rider.