• @vampire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    I don’t really think you need to worry about inanimate objects seeing as they haven’t been made for good or evil specifically. On the other hand, if you write software that decides who lives or dies, you have a gigantic responsibility and the blood of any accident is on your hands

  • @jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    181 year ago

    How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go for collateral ethical responsibility?

    If you work on the power grid that has a weapons manufacturer are you responsible for every use of that weapon?

    If you provide clean water, and workers of a weapons factory drink that water, are you now responsible for the weapons?

    If you design a weapon safety system, to prevent misfires, are you not responsible for the other uses of the weapon?

    If you make a composite steel alloy, and some of the purchasers of that alloy are weapons manufacturers etc etc etc

    • @WormFood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      in my opinion this is very straightforward. the people working directly on power, water and materials don’t have any control over how those things are used and often don’t/can’t know what they’re being used for. however, at some point, a decision is made - for example, someone at the company that makes the steel alloy decides to sell it to raytheon - and so whoever made that decision is responsible.

      and yes, if you work on a weapon safety system, you are working on an essential part of that weapon and so are responsible for its use

      • @Mananasi@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        It’s not always straightforward. I work as a software developer at a company which creates scientific measurement instruments. These instruments are used to do research into new battery types, and make cement greener. But they are also used extensively by the fossil fuel industry. I do struggle with the ethics of this.

        For now I’ve decided to keep doing the job and make good money. When we’ve figured some other shit out in our lives we’ll most likely move, and I’ll give it another shot to work a job which I feel better about.

  • @underscore_@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    It of course depends on the context and choice of ethics framework. If the decision is personal I like to use the shorthand: If you have the privilege to choose, then choose to build the type of future you want to live in.

  • @WormFood@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    161 year ago

    i mean, i probably wouldn’t resent you for mopping the floors at BAE. but if you actually design or build the missiles, yes, that is unethical

    a lot of people are using the example of ukraine to say ‘sometimes the missiles are for the greater good’, and while i would agree with that specific example, you don’t have control over where your missiles go. russian tank, yemeni refugee, etc

    i also think saying ‘the parts will be made anyway’ is kind of a dodge, the question isn’t whether the parts will be made, it’s whether you will make them

  • @Atin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    241 year ago

    Sure. Every country has a right to defend itself. Most of the time it isn’t the tool that isn’t moral but how it is put to use.

  • @TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 year ago

    I feel like this really depends on your options. Ethics are less crucial when your options are lesser as well.

    If you’re choosing between equally paying jobs in military contracting vs saving lives? Pretty easy choice to me. If you’re choosing between doing manual labor for a military supplier vs your family being on the street? Also a pretty easy choice.

    • Ethics are less crucial when your options are lesser as well.

      But that may be an illusion, and your conscience may tell you about it - later.

  • @profdc9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    Some military devices help prevent conflict and minimize its harm. A lot of modern warfare is increasing situational awareness. For example, radar, night vision, surveillance, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, tactical communications, and signals intelligence. Of course, these technologies can be used in a way that harms as well. But the alternative is a blind slugfest that probably harms a lot more civilians and friendly fire.

    • @abracaDavid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Ah yes. Bigger, better, more deadly weapons will definitely help reduce deaths.

      It’s all just lining the pockets of weapons manufacturers.

  • @BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    71 year ago

    Probably fine if you are the janitor. If you are the engineer in charge of maximising “effectiveness” of weaponry well…

        • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          Yes that is “morally wrong” as well. The difference is that you don’t have a choice.

          Moral wrongs become less wrong the less of a choice you have to make them.

          Stealing is bad, but I have no problem with a starving person that steals.

      • GladiusB
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        But that’s not how most janitorial contracts work. You work for a company and then are contracted to clean. You don’t have a say with who owns the building. For the most part anyways.

        • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Most of these defense contractors are pretty big and I’d assume a person would need special clearance to access them. If a person has no other choice to feed their family then it would be morally acceptable, but if they can avoid it then they should.

      • @BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ethics is our most pressing modern dilemma. What if the janitor and his two kids he raises alone are about to get kicked out of their flat unless he finds a new job, and he’s been looking for 4 months and it’s the only offer he got?

        • @d0ct0r0nline@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Or I’ll even take it a different direction. Say the janitor is single, lives a minimalistic lifestyle, and gives money to anti-war causes or politicians actively trying to regulate these weapons.

          Can we quantify morality? Is there enough of an ethical net gain here to absolve them?

  • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    It depends on whether the military you’re selling it to behave ethically.

    Weapons aren’t inherently bad. Every organism has weapons. It’s all about how you use them.

  • @scoobford@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    I don’t think so, mostly because those companies are some of the worst manipulators of our democracy.

    In terms of actually helping to manufacture weapons, there are necessary and ethical uses for those weapons, and you as an individual cannot choose where they go. Not an issue IMO.