3 ms·

As 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 unethica

As 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 ago
I 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 ago
Responsibility 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.

avmich 13y ago

I 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 ago

Responsibility 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.