4 ms·
From what you write, I get an impression that you claim this article is irrelevant and worthless, especially because "engineering tools can always be used both
by akavel 13y ago
From what you write, I get an impression that you claim this article is irrelevant and worthless, especially because "engineering tools can always be used both for good and bad", and thus an engineer has totally no responsibility as to where his creations are used. But actually, an engineer can choose for which company he works, can't he? So, he already has some choice! Sure, in the end, a tool he created might get used by an "evildoing" company, if buyer of the engineer's work sells it, but then at least the engineer had his totally real chance to at least try to make it harder, by not selling immediately to the evildoer, doesn't he? I don't understand how can you claim that an engineer cannot make such a choice, and "must perforce ignore tangential ethical implications".
You also claim, that if engineer wanted to care about ethics, he would have "to go insane second-guessing how others might pervert [his work]". Classical rhetorical maneuver of exaggeration - why immediately claim his only option is "insane second-guessing"? Please don't remove engineer from ability of basic observation and critical thinking - as some totally sane observation has already power to reveal quite a lot of morally suspicious activity of a company! So, does an engineer have moral right to close his eyes, or claim that what he sees, and by his work facilitates, he actually does not facilitate? Is that what you claim?
Now, the problem is, first of all, that it's easy and cozy to claim no responsiblity and no power. But this always is, was, and will be easy. And second problem, and that's how I understand the gist of the most of the article, is that because of corporations (especially their size), this observation and reasoning actually did recently get quite a bit harder and more difficult. But therefore, it should be considered important to try and make an effort of thinking about how to reverse that, so that engineers could regain more control and insight here.
Also, from many problems I have with your response, one other that shines is your claim that the article calls "to form formal associations, assign things to committees, and then issue a series of prescriptions on what the group members ought to do". Where, oh where, does it give even a slightest hint in this direction??? Please!
- msandford 13y agoAs an engineer I really hate the idea that it should fall to me to quit as basically my only option if my boss wants me to do something that I think is unethical. I understand where the authors of the Guardian article are coming from. But I also think it's shitty to suggest that because of someone else's poor morals I have to find a new job. I say this as a guy who's successfully avoided working at companies where I might be put in the position to have to make that choice. So I'm not bitter that I've already had to quit a job as a result. But it does kinda bum me out that there are a lot of jobs I can't take because of the possibility of my work getting abused. What bugs me is that the implicit assumption here is that management is corrupt and can't be trusted to be ethical themselves, and thus it falls to the engineers to boycott actually doing what they pay us to do. Why shouldn't the blame go to the people who are holding the reins?
- avmich 13y agoI think the idea is you can work for anybody, but you should think what you're doing. If everything the company does is immoral, don't work for them at all. If not all is immoral, you can do what's moral. Usually it's a whole gray of shades.
- repsilat 13y agoResponsibility isn't zero-sum. The fact that you have an obligation not to act irresponsibly does not absolve your manager of the obligation not to ask you to. This particular article focuses on one particular layer in the heirarchy, but the author isn't implying that morality is only relevant in the trenches -- it applies at all levels, and shortcomings at any level should be addressed. This was an article written by an engineer for an engineering audience; tomorrow you might see an article in a different newspaper for middle managers or company directors or shareholders. As an aside, though "exit" may be a more powerful force than "voice", I wouldn't discount people's abilities to change corporate behaviour by mechanisms other than boycott. In fact, if moral workers are to steer clear of questionable businesses it is unreasonable to expect those businesses to maintain any kind of moral compass.