It is always ethical to not starve to death. (Caveat: assuming you are not directly harming someone else) If the only job available to you is making supplies for the military, don't beat yourself up. We live in a capitalist hellscape, you need to pay rent, you need to buy food, you need health insurance, you need to be able to have vacations and save for retirement and do fun things from time to time. If you can do anything to mitigate that harm--participate in demonstrations, donate to aid organizations, etc--do that; but if you're not in a situation to be able to do those things, you're not being unethical. You're just doing what you can.
It is always ethical to do less harm. If your company makes support equipment for military applications--desk chairs, for example, or toilet paper--your job is more ethical than the job making, you know, bombs or bullets or napalm or whatever. A job making things that are not inherently harmful but can be used in the course of causing harm-- well, let's be honest, that's every job.
A job in military supply is as ethical as the company you work for and the military they sell to. If your company is selling smart bombs to Russia's military, try to get out. But if your company is selling to a military that uses the products of your labor to mount a defense against an invading force, what you're doing might even be helping to reduce death.
But overall, "ethicalness" is not a binary, and it's not the same in every situation.
you need to be able to have vacations and save for retirement and do fun things from time to time
ahem actually people only need to exist and survive until they work themselves to death getting tangled in the gears of my spinning jennys
Very good criterias! I think OP posted a great question, and your philosophy seems to be a very interesting merge of a virtue-based approach (that A/B is always good/bad) and an utilitarian one. I like it at a lot :)
Pretty sure its just moral relativism.
If the choice is starve or work for this company, then yes its ethical.
If your skills and experience can transfer to other companies and jobs, then no its not ethical IMO.
If the choice is to starve or work for this company, then it's pragmatic to work there. No, it's not ethical. That being said, not everyone is in the fortunate position where they can let their ethics decide where they work, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Yeah most engineers in defense work aren’t starved for jobs, but in fact are paid the most by military contractors. It’s like Snowden working for Booz Allen Hamilton, government contractors pay talented people a ton to advance their goals and keep their mouth shut. But they could make less working somewhere else
How far do you take it?
Work in food supply that feeds the people who make end weapons?
Working in that industry you're creating food. It's purpose is to nourish people. Working in an industry that makes weapons to harm, and kill is intrinsically different.
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.
I work for an aerospace and defense contractor. The vast majority of my activities over the years has been for non-military space flight, but not all of it, I've also worked on torpedos, missile defense, and other military systems.
When I started working for the company, it was on the space shuttle project, so the military part didn't even occur to me (though the shuttle did place some military payloads). When I was first asked to support the military side, I found myself doing some soul searching, and I decided the main question I had to ask myself was, "Should the United States have weapons or a military?" I pretty quickly decided the answer was yes.
Does that mean I agree with every military action the government has taken? No, far from it. But there have also been many I do agree with, and I for sure believe the country needs a strong military.
So yes, I believe it's ethical.
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.
Is it ethical to give tools to a country you don't trust to use them responsibly?
Countries don't exist. Only people.
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
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
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.
What if you work in HR at a major weapons manufacturer?
I don't think it is inherently unethical to work for a defense supplier, but it obviously depends on the country it is supplying. We in the West certainly need a strong defense industry. China and Russia both have publicly declared their intention to conquer other countries. Just ask Ukraine or Taiwan. Or Europe. Europe can't properly support Ukraine because its defense industry is so fragmented, politicized and atrophied.
We in the West certainly need a strong defense industry.
But our defense industry sells arms to more or less anyone willing to pay. Most types of arms have basically become commodities, and the net effect of anyone producing more is that arms become cheaper and more accessible worldwide.
I'm no expert on arms control, but I'm pretty sure the industry in the West can only sell to approved countries. But, yes, I take your point that there is always some form of arms race happening in the world and keeping the arms industry going means having to sell more arms, which will be used to kill people at some point. Unfortunately, we still need a defense industry.
Good point.
I'd think that the work these folks in Ukraine are doing would be an example of ethical (and, my God, it must be fulfilling) defense work.
We in the West certainly need a strong defense industry. China and Russia both have publicly declared their intention to conquer other countries. Just ask Ukraine or Taiwan.
But just don't ask Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Lybia, Panama, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen... am I right?
Korea seems like a really bad example for you, since the South relies on the US to prevent invasion.
I wonder who was leading South Korea for like forty years after the war? There's no way it would a fascist dictator was it? Yes, no peace treaty was ever signed. What is your point exactly? Why do you think the north has somehow less of a claim than a country that had to be propped up by the world's biggest bully for decades?
Come on, more even the north admits they don't want unification, just that South Korea is their number one enemy.
As for the dictator, yes the was bad and dark times. But nowadays SK definitely doesn't want to get taken over by NK.
Yeah, since literally this year. Nearly sixty years on.
As for the dictator, yes the was bad and dark times.
The US didn't seem to.see that as a problem.
No, do ask them. Go ahead. Some will try to outright murder you for unrelated reasons. Some do not regard the US as a threat any more and the rest will turn out to be goddam assholes you'd wish to be bombed again.
Ah yes, America killing literally tens of million: righteous! China killing literally no one, absolute scum of the earth!
Never takes much for the shoe to drop with you people.
Huh? China has been killing tons of people in their concentration camps.
When did America kill tens of millions? China certainly did kill tens of millions under Mao. Did you make a mistake and reverse the order?
You can't possibly be serious. You've got to be a troll.
Vietnam: 3~4,000,000 (not account for the the devastatinf effects of agent orange)
Cambodia: 500,000 (not counting US involvement in continuing Khmer Rouge's massacres)
Laos: 50,000 (not accounting for the still ongoing issue of unexploded ordinances)
Korea: 2~4,000,000
Iraq desert storm: 1,000,000+
Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria: 400,00 direct violent deaths and 3~4,000,000 indirect deaths.
Shall I continue?
Not going to retract your comment about China then?
He has never claimed that China hasn't murdered anyone? Neither has he opposed your claim that China killed millions (which they sure did).
It's really sad to see this type of reactions when people try to say anything against the US. Questioning the US is not the same thing as supporting china, whatever US politicians want you to believe.
What? You clearly didn't read the thread. This was his comment:
"China killing literally no one, absolute scum of the earth!"
Edit: Also, I didn't try to excuse US killing. I just can't believe that anyone would claim that China has killed literally no one and then set that up against a claim that the US has killed tens of millions.
You're conflating policy failures (for which he absolutely took responsibility) to wars of aggression. If you can't see how these two aren't the same you can't be helped.
Found the tankie, lol!
Excusing Mao's world record mass murders as a "policy failure".
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
As a rule of thumb... no.
As soon as you are asking this seriously, the answer for you personally is: better don't.
You don't know the future, you can never know what will be done with the things you have built and who will be doing it.
If you are a young person, you are simply looking to make money (and maybe don't do much harm at the same time, but that's second priority), and I think that's quite OK for a while.
The older you get, the more weight you put on the question: what are you really doing there every day and for whose benefit?
Counterpoint: what about all the weapons used by Ukraine to defend itself and western democracy against Russian aggression and imperialism? Should those not have been made?
Edit: Editing my most top level comment to point out possible subsequent vote brigading. When this post was only half a day old I received way more upvotes than the people I debated. Now that this post has gotten older the ratio is closer to neutral without any new comments pointing to any flaws in my argument. Hence, I think my debate partners felt the need to involve their equally misled friends to downvote my arguments and upvote their previously negatively voted comments back into the positives. Seems very inorganic to me.
Edit 2: The above edit is mostly meant for my discussion thread with NeoNachtwaechter.
In peacetime, countries do not make as many weapons as they can. They make as many weapons as they think they need, based on how many weapons they think their rivals have. So when you make a weapon, you also make a lot of other countries make weapons. And this weapon buildup increases the risk of war.
In a perfectly peaceful world where autocracies can live side by side with democracies you may have a point. But autocratic Russia's war of aggression on democratic Ukraine certainly paints a different picture to your wishful thinking. The lesson for democratic countries is therefore clear: If you don't want to be invaded by uncooperative and irrational autocracies, you have to build up as much military capacity as your unpredictable systemic rivals. Remind me again, who had the military advantage by sheer numbers in the war on Ukraine?
If you don't want to be invaded by uncooperative and irrational autocracies, you have to build up as much military capacity as your unpredictable systemic rivals.
Every resource spent on weapons is a resource not spent on infrastructure / education / what have you. Military expenditure is at best a necessary evil; a better option is to have just enough weapons to stop an enemy's initial attack, and to invest the rest of your resources into building industrial capacity that can be used for military production if the need arises.
Remind me again, who had the military advantage by sheer numbers in the war on Ukraine?
Russia doesn't calculate how many weapons it needs to produce depending on how many Ukraine has. It's main threats are the other superpowers - the US and China. So of course in a conflict with Ukraine they will have a massive advantage.
Your first paragraph ist simply paraphrasing my entire comment, so you agree with me.
Regarding your second paragraph: Then why did they attack and invade Ukraine, if it is neither a threat nor a rivaling power? Kind of looks like Ukraine having not enough arms to defend itself was one of the prime motives for Russia.
Right, I'm not saying countries should dismantle their armies, just that weapon manufacturing and stockpiling should be avoided as far as possible unless your country is under attack.
Ukraine was similarly lacking in arms from 1990 to 2014. Russia only felt the need to attack when it felt threatened that Ukraine might join NATO, because that could result in US troops on its doorstep.
Ah yea, Ukrainian does not want to follow orders for Russia or even considers joining NATO is for sure a very valid reason to attack, murder and rape Ukrainians! I totally forgot about this brilliant piece of Russian propaganda! But thanks for read from the Putin bible for us!!!
I think the idea of all weapons are bad, is a idea born by people far far away from any dictators or aggressive neighbors etc. if you go to Ukraine, South Korea, Taiwan or Surinam, then you might realize this is a luxury stance. Not every redneck needs a AR, but there are people who only sink ships in the read sea, because fuck everyone else.
I think working in defense is not bad, as long as you do not try to sell your tech to dictators or Mexican drug cartels. So it would be good if the company complies to certain values…
I don't think invading other people's countries is morally right. But the Russian decision to invade Ukraine was taken, in part, due to concern that Ukraine might join NATO.
I think the idea of all weapons are bad, is a idea born by people far far away from any dictators or aggressive neighbors etc.
My country won independence from the biggest empire in the history of the world through non-violent methods. This of course does not mean non-violent methods will always work. But going to war without trying peaceful methods first is a great way to commit suicide on a national level. And having more weapons does seem to encourage such behaviour.
Your argument is flawed in so many places I don't even know where to begin. So I'll start by assuming you are from India. You won your independence from the British due to many reasons, but the big one being that Britain itself lost interest in controlling your country after the Second World War and democratically voted on it in 1947. I don't see Russia ever losing interest in fully invading Ukraine anytime in the near future (or even entertain the notion to have a democratic vote on the matter), as their stated war goal is full control over Ukraine. Hence a peacful Ukrainian protest against Russian aggression would only result in Russian dominiance over Ukraine. And somehow Ukraine having less weapons in this situation would prompt Russia to scrap their invasion and go home to pre-2014 borders?
Countries do not have, or lose, interest in doing this or that on a whim. The British government agreed to Indian independence because continued large-scale protests were making it difficult to profitably exploit India's natural resources, and the home economy (and army) were in a state of rebuilding after WW2. Also, there was diplomatic pressure from the two superpowers to end colonialism.
Russia claims to be concerned with (1) Ukraine joining NATO, and (2) the treatment of the Russian minority in Ukraine. (In addition, Putin is probably using this war to rally domestic support, and weaken / arrest the opposition.) Would either of these concerns have been assuaged by a stronger Ukrainian military?
Again, I am not saying that violence should never be used. The Nazis, clearly, had to be defeated militarily. France had to be driven out of Vietnam. But violence should always be the last option. And the buildup of weapons encourages politicians to respond to any problem with force, which just makes things worse for everyone.
I wish I had a thorough answer for you, but I'm afraid it would be very, very complicated. This war came out of a complex situation and we (westerners) can understand only a fraction of it all.
But I give you just a simple idea to think about:
Imagine all these weapons would not have existed, on both sides, then maybe there would have been a war anyway, but probably much less killing and suffering.
you make an interesting point and it reminds me of a counter point: that modern wars might have higher death tolls than historical wars, but modern wars - with modern weapons - end up costing less life overall compared to the populations of the time.
for tribal conflict of humans past, victory could mean wiping out the other tribe - 50% death toll or higher. as weapons advanced and more efficient and more destructive tactics emerged, wars can be more violent and more deadly but shorter and with fewer deaths compared to the overall population. wars became efficient.
all this is to say that if we didn’t have modern weapons there would be more killing - not less. “victory” would necessitate more deaths.
wars can be [...] shorter
I'm not so sure about that - appears like a theoretical argument to me. Today's real wars are going much too long to let this look plausible.
You'd have to read historical facts if you really want to compare wars. I would simply think about some people fighting with bare hands, and they get exhausted after only a few minutes (and may decide to make peace then), while some people fighting with guns can do that easily for years.
I agree with you in theory, but the current reality just does not give a fuck about wishful thinking. As long as there are despots like Putin, Xi Jinping, et al., who see our democratic values as a threat to their own autocratic views we simply have to live with the fact that we have to build weapons to deter their imperialistic goals.
Now that is not only too simple thinking, but it is also not true. As far as your weapons are used there, it is for your own imperialistic goals.
So you prefer autocracies over democracies? Am I understanding you correctly?
Now you are mixing up things badly. The answer is No. You are not understanding.
I think I am understanding you very well. You say democratic imperialism is just as bad as autocratic imperialism, creating a false balance when you agree that autocracies are inherently worse for humanity than democracies. Furthermore, Ukraine was attacked by a far more capable force than their own. They, by the very definition of imperialism, cannot be imperialistic by simply fighting for its own survival against an autocratic and clearly imperialist Russia.
nonono, there's no democratic imperialism. that's not aligning with our values that we let Ukrainians die for.
please mind the talking points and don't mention Turkey.
I didn't bring it up, NeoNachtwaechter did. I simply continued to use the term to point out their hipocrisy.
However, there certainly is such a thing as democratic imperialism. What else would you call Nixon giving the order to overthrow the newly elected socialist Chilean president Allende in 1970 and then condoning the fascist Pinochet's coup to power in 1973? Or the USA's "war on terror" post-9/11 by invading inter alia Iraq and Afghanistan? I could go on.
No, you still don't.
You say democratic imperialism is just as bad as autocratic imperialism
I said nothing like that.
I said that your imperialism exists and that your weapons are used for it. But I did not judge your imperialism as better or worse or equal.
you agree that autocracies are inherently worse for humanity than democracies.
I also did not say that. You are making up lots and lots of things :-/
I don't even know whether or not you are living in a democratic country (but I think I can deduct from your texts that you think you do).
Carefully read your replies to my comments. My interpretation of your replies is made in good faith that you want to argue constructively against my position. Simply stating "no" to any of my questions just does not cut it without any evidence to support your opinion. I therefore must assume that you are arguing in favor of Russia, when you pull out whataboutisms and false balances about
your own [Western] imperialistic goals
without properly engaging and refuting my realist observations about Russia. You should learn debate discipline or to properly express your opinion to avoid such misinterpretarions, as your very open and underequipped replies leave just as much room to attack your position as Ukraine's open and underequppied situation before the war sparked Russian aggression.
It's a complex question, but I think the short answer is it depends on if your country has safeguards in place to control where that manufactured equipment goes. A few months ago I watched a video interview of a US State Department official who publicly resigned because he felt those safeguards (specifically laws of war and laws of proportionality) had been bypassed during recent arms transfer to Israel. I could see someone quitting their military manufacturing or engineering jobs for the same reasons. Whether or not you agree with how your nation's arms are being used is a matter of personal ethics and involves things like political accountability.
I know I want my country to have self-defense capabilities, and that means having a well-supplied military. Thus I support at least some arms manufacturing. I very much dislike the idea of it being entangled with major economic factors because I don't want war to make economic sense - i.e. "drive the industry". My guess is a lot of people worldwide would like to see less arms-for-profit trading because it makes military industrialists rich at the expense of weapons spreading around the world and often causing harm to innocent people.
do you feel what the united states spends on its military is proportionate to its direct defense requirement?
i think were up to 950b/year in 'danger'
Honestly, I'm not wise/educated enough to give a certain answer. I sure feel like there's a lot more spending being done than is probably required, and the DoD has failed multiple audits for 6 years now. So there's cause for concern or at least accountability about where the US taxpayer's money is ending up. The DoD budget could buy a lot of infrastructure, teachers, healthcare, debt relief, etc. so it's not unreasonable for citizens to want to know what they're gaining in exchange for giving those things up.
On the other hand, I live in Canada and the hard truth is we rely on the USA for a lot of our military needs. I know if Putin decides Ukraine isn't enough and he starts eyeing Canadian land (say in the Arctic), then I'm going to want to know NATO can win. My final take is probably that US military spending could be moderated, but cuts should be made carefully with justification.
No. I left the military because I couldn't morally justify staying in.
I think this question boils down to this: Do your actions have a net positive or a net negative affect on the world? Does working at this company in some way offset the harm that the company is doing downstream? In this case I have a hard time coming up with a reasonable way in which this might be the case. Paying you and your family to have stuff doesn't offset causing actual death and physical harm.
I mean ... not saying I necessarily agree, but isn't the logical counter argument being defense and deterrence?
I use to be much much more ideologically against arms production, but honestly, seeing what's happening in Ukraine has given me some pause and caused me to reflect a lot. When a tyrant like Putin can amass a huge amount of weaponry and just decide to invade and impose a totalitarian dictatorship on a neighbouring country, and the only thing that has stopped him is a mass amount of better weaponry, it muddies the moral waters a bit.
This is true, but on a personal level I have no idea how to do the calculus for, "My work is killing people, but it would have been worse if it hadn't." I think the show "The Good Place" got it right and it is just too interconnected and complicated to actually derive an answer as to whether an action is net negative or positive. That said, if I had to place money on a given action being negative, working for an arms manufacturer would be one I'd be fairly comfortable betting on.
No. But people have different ideas of what's ethical and what's not.
If you ask in a pro military or Conservative space you'll probably be told "yes".
You'll have to decide for yourself whether you could live with working for such a company. Everyone needs to eat and if that's your best choice for work then it may not be such an easy choice.
No.
No
Fuck no.
No.
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
- The Good Place
Definitely not if you have the opportunity to work somewhere else.
If it's a choice then no I don't think it's ethical. If it's the only job you can get and you absolutely need it to survive or you're facing threat of war from another country that's a harder issue.
But assuming you aren't forced to do it and it's entirely your choice in time of peace: choosing to make weapons of war isn't very ethical IMO. That's a pretty huge assumption, though. Real life is rarely so simple.
nope, not if you care about human beings. the united states especially is under no threat requiring a near trillion dollar a year 'defense'
the military-industrial complex is a jobs-welfare program, but none of them will admit they are welfare recipients.
many people can overlook their particular part as 'well, my role isnt making a bullet that will go through a human, so what i do for this company is ok'
im not that delusional.
many people can overlook their particular part
People are amazingly good at this.
"I just make the munitions, I don't use them".
"I just load the munitions, I don't actually fire the weapon".
"I just fire the weapon, I didn't put my target into the warzone".
"If I wasn't, someone else would anyway".
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.
Of course not
Yes. Defense is important. Pacifism is unworkable in today's geopolitical sphere. Weapons create peace.
If you're worried about ethics, it's going to be very difficult finding a job that will make you a living that is ethical.
I mean... you can upstream everything. I work for a place that sells outdoor sports gear. Pretty benign unless you do a deep dive into supply chains and the like.
For the record, I did work at a place the built parts for cruise missiles. It sucked. I quit
Absolutely not.
Yes Ukraine is an example of a good use for a defense industry but US history is littered with tragedies, massacres and massive amounts of suffering from all the other bad things having a defense industry does.
I started in defense, but I would now after 15+ years not do any work in defense or gambling or trading. It was a good experience for me though, taught me a lot, but I wouldn't do it again now.
I've just received an offer from a large company in the gambling industry.
I am somewhat conflicted about taking it, on one hand I feel adults should be allowed to decide to waste some money at a casino and I have no issue with gambling as an activity.
But, while I don't feel gambling is inherently bad, I am aware that the companies in the industry are incredibly predatory and invest significant amounts of resources into making their products and services as addictive as possible.
My current job is basically just helping further the CCP's global expansion so I feel gambling is somewhat better ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Im hoping for another offer from a company who do software for the insurance industry, that would be first prize...
Would there be any aspect of defense you would consider? For example another comment mentioned situational awareness, etc. Basically weapons systems which might STOP them from being used on civilians?
No, I blacklisted the whole industry and will not take any job there.
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.
This is something I wrestle with sometimes as an engineering student and I think it does vary from country to country. You’ve got to ask yourself how the world would be different without those companies - whether other less friendly countries would come to prominence and whether the removal of the such a deterrence would make wars more common. But on the other hand, you should think about how those weapons are used and whether it’s ‘right’ like the defence of Ukraine, or more objectionable like some of the more polarising conflicts around the world. It’s a very difficult question but personally I don’t think I would work for a weapons company coz I don’t know how I’d feel about making something that is designed to kill people
I don’t think it’s ethical. But if it’s take that job or lose my house? I’ll take the job until I can find something better.
The problem I have with working for military contractors is you never know wtf the government is going to do with them. When Trump was elected dude wanted to nuke a hurricane. Weapons in the wrong hands is very dangerous and is the biggest concern I have. Which is also kind of why I want a meritocracy system to stop stupid shit from happening.
Anyways, I diverge. If you had no other choice than to work for a company that kills people then maybe? Lots of those guys also do space exploration or something as well so I'm sure you could find something without making weapons.
As a Buddhist no it's absolutely not, as trading in weapons is specifically prohibited by the Right Livelihood part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Otherwise I see no problem.
No - it's not ethical.
Very little evil is actually a direct result of evil people doing evil things. The vast majority of it comes to be through ordinary people doing banal things - things that, like building weapons, are questionable at best, but that they excuse because it's "out of my control."
The thing is that it's not out of their control. Yes - if one individual makes the decision to not take part, that's not going to have much of an effect, but if every person who feels the same way makes that same choice, that absolutely WILL have an effect.
And there's only one way to make it so that every person who feels the same way makes that choice, and that's for each one of them, individually, to look past that "it's out of my control" bullshit excuse and go ahead and do it.
Everything on any significant scale is out of individual control. Individuals just possess a very limited amount of control over affairs on a national, much less global, scale. But that's really entirely beside the point. The point is how you choose to exercise the small amount of control you have. Will you use it for good, or for evil?
I think the argument is kinda weak, because from my decision to do something (like construct a weapon) the other workers at the factories don't change their opinion. For these kinds of events to happen, there must either already be a huge grudge in the workforce, so that you're the "tipping point", or you have to be as charismatic as a reborn Jesus and convince everyone to follow you. Both of these events seem implausible here. Thus, your decision to make or not make a weapon will not influence others, and the outcome won't be significant.
However, I'd love to have your input on it. I think the question if for the judgment of an action it is important that it is significant (or not) is a fundamentally important one, so I'd really appreciate your response here :)
the other workers at the factories don’t change their opinion.
And some number of those workers have the exact same opinion that you do - they're opposed, but they don't think they can make a difference.
And if all of you stopped waiting around for some charismatic leader to tell you what to do and just went ahead and made the choice you prefer, you would make a difference.
Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn't true. Lots of people have tried rebelling and fighting against a regime, but failed. So this logic doesn't apply in every case, does it?
Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn’t true.
How did you not get my point?
We'll try it this way:
Thirty people live in a town.
Ten of them, with a leader, want some policy implemented
Twenty of them oppose the policy.
The ten with a leader organize and push for the policy
The twenty who oppose it stand around with their thumbs up their asses, each of them telling themselves that they can't accomplish anything by themselves.
The policy gets implemented
Or
The ten with a leader organize and push for a policy.
The twenty who oppose it each, individually, pull their thumbs out of their asses and stand up and say they oppose it.
Each of those individuals, making their individual choices, finds themselves surrounded by nineteen other individuals who made the same individual choice.
They easily outnumber the ten who want the policy and the policy fails.
That's exactly how and why individuals going ahead and making their individual choices instead of failing to do it because "I can't make a difference by myself" can make a difference.
All they have to do is stop waiting around for somebody to lead them, pull their thumbs out of their asses, and just go ahead and do it on their own, each one as an individual.
Okay, let me rephrase - for me it sounds that if people work together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Aka, if I am one of the twenty who sit around and do nothing, stand up, I on my own probably won't be able to block the policy. But if I stand up, there's a good chance others will get up as well and do. Or maybe I'll discover that after I stand up, there are three others of whom I haven't suspected anything, but who now also oppose the policy. And thus by standing up, you also influence others. If that is successful (aka if you can stop the policy or not), you can only find out afterwards.
Is that right?
It's ethical, the parts will be made whether you work that job or not, and you're only responsible for the actions of the military to the extent that you're able to change them.
Since none of your reasonable options will make an impact on the production or use of those items, it's not a ethical issue for you to work there.
What matters much more is your ability to provide for yourself and those around you.
Obviously not, as you might have heard, those things are used to kill people.
Was the reason I quit my last job.
Collectively, no. Personally, yes. People deserve to make a living.
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.
Ah yes. Bigger, better, more deadly weapons will definitely help reduce deaths.
It's all just lining the pockets of weapons manufacturers.
Hell no
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.
no and ive always refused to do it but actually im fucked now so maybe i would
If it was to like the Japanese self defense force? Sure.
If it's to the US and going towards bombing civilians all across the world? Hell no.
Yes. I don't want my effort to be dedicated to death and destruction. Imagine you're the guy who designed the iconic Tomahawk cruise missile. You can't mistake that profile. Every time you see or hear about one of those things being launched you know there's a good chance many people are going to die. Who wants that on their conscience?
There's a difference, in my opinion, between designing a weapon and just being a generic worker at the company.
As a generic worker, the end result isn't any different whether it was you or someone else. For example, I don't think a guy who works at a Tesla factory could be considered responsible if the self driving malfunctions and kills someone. He might have directly contributed to the car that got built, but if he didn't work that job the car would have still been made and the tragedy would still have happened.
That missile may be used by Ukraine defending against Russians attackers trying to kill them. Sure people die as a result of your work, but you also allow others to live.
The real unethical thing is for anyone - regardless of where you work - to allow your military weapons to be used for "evil". (Note that I didn't define evil)
From my perspective, definitely if for Ukraine. I think it depends on what you can reasonably infer the weapons will be used for. If that use lines up with your beliefs, go for it.
YouTube has taught me that weapons are only used against menacing watermelons and disturbed canisters, in your backyard.
/s
Orthogonal to ethics. If you'd specify a country, then I could answer that question.
Probably fine if you are the janitor. If you are the engineer in charge of maximising "effectiveness" of weaponry well....
I'm going to disagree on that one. Anything to do that helps enabling it is morally wrong.
Paying taxes? Most of that goes to military spending in the US
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.
That's factually not true.
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.
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.
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?
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?
By asking the question, you've already decided.
No. Absolutely not. This is how their tools put them above you in power. You get to use their tools, but only to increase their power over you.
Yes.
Pacifism is a moronic stance as a rule, born out of coddled overprivileged upbringings. War and weaponry have been a cornerstone of humanity since the first time a guy brained another guy with a rock.
Not building weapons simply means you'll have fewer, nobody else will do you the courtesy of not attacking you because you were nice and didn't proliferate.
There's a reason the most peaceful country on earth, Switzerland, has most adults as trained members of the reserves, and everyone has access to state mandated weapons of war either in their homes or their local armouries.
Yes it is. You are not the one ordering purchasing or using those.
You boycott by not buying Nestlé not by not working in it.
What?! You can come up with marketing campaigns to misguide and deceive the public, also makes your livelihood depends on it. But as long as you are not buying, then you are fine?!
The entire nestle company, from marketing, to research, to engineer, to accounting, are hired for one singular purpose: making people buy their products. people working in nestle are THE driving force for others to buy nestle product.
I understand life is complex and sometimes people have no choice, but that doesn't make bad choice less bad, and unethical choice ethical. I wouldn't judge people just because they work in nestle; but I would not work for nestle if I can.
Find me a company that is not evil. Should we become all eco-beekepers or starve?
Following your reasoning all marketing jobs should be unethical. Where do you draw the line?
No, working is not unethical no matter who pays you.
Reality is more complex than ideals.
Although it is true that no organization is perfect, there are certainly better companies v.s. worse companies. For example, I believe Linux foundation is more ethical than Nestle, Mozilla is more ethical than Facebook, world bank is more ethical than American military.
If all company is equally evil, then you probably won't boycott nestle, because all of them are the same.
Hence, to me, there are certainly more ethical job than other jobs, depends what you are contributing to. I would argue a gardener in charge of planting and preserving local plants, is more ethical than CEO of nestle. Marketing at EFF is probably a more ethical job than marketing for nestle.
Of course, if you would starve if you don't work in nestle, then the society has failed you, it is not your fault. This is why I said that I wouldn't judge a person solely because they work at nestle, it really depends on their alternative.
I understand different person realize their ethical standards to different extent, I personally won't accept a job from nestle, no matter how much they are paying me if I have the opportunity to earn a living wage as a barista, waiter, janitor, or any other job.
Finally, I believe "working is not unethical" seems misguided, by this logic CEO of nestle is ethical, he claim water shouldn't be a human right, which indeed helps their company sell more product and make more money (like everyone else at nestle). Hence his claim is completely ethical, just because making money is in his job description?
Like you said, real life is complicated, hence I believe blanketed statements like "working is not unethical" probably won't hold true.
I think you are correct on most of it, but judging if somebody has or not alternatives is impossible. Of course everybody has alternatives, at least in the western world, but still lots of good and ethical people work for Nestlé.
It's fine. The designers of a weapon aren't responsible for how its used.
Do you live in the united states or any of its allies? If yes, then no, it is not ethical.
So if you're Russian, sure, go for it!
What a very intelligent take.
Or Chinese, yes lol
Who would win: one American who thinks about ethics or 5 hungry Chinese who don't even know the word "ethics"?
My opinion is threefold:
It is always ethical to not starve to death. (Caveat: assuming you are not directly harming someone else) If the only job available to you is making supplies for the military, don't beat yourself up. We live in a capitalist hellscape, you need to pay rent, you need to buy food, you need health insurance, you need to be able to have vacations and save for retirement and do fun things from time to time. If you can do anything to mitigate that harm--participate in demonstrations, donate to aid organizations, etc--do that; but if you're not in a situation to be able to do those things, you're not being unethical. You're just doing what you can.
It is always ethical to do less harm. If your company makes support equipment for military applications--desk chairs, for example, or toilet paper--your job is more ethical than the job making, you know, bombs or bullets or napalm or whatever. A job making things that are not inherently harmful but can be used in the course of causing harm-- well, let's be honest, that's every job.
A job in military supply is as ethical as the company you work for and the military they sell to. If your company is selling smart bombs to Russia's military, try to get out. But if your company is selling to a military that uses the products of your labor to mount a defense against an invading force, what you're doing might even be helping to reduce death.
But overall, "ethicalness" is not a binary, and it's not the same in every situation.
ahem actually people only need to exist and survive until they work themselves to death getting tangled in the gears of my spinning jennys
Very good criterias! I think OP posted a great question, and your philosophy seems to be a very interesting merge of a virtue-based approach (that A/B is always good/bad) and an utilitarian one. I like it at a lot :)
Pretty sure its just moral relativism.
If the choice is starve or work for this company, then yes its ethical.
If your skills and experience can transfer to other companies and jobs, then no its not ethical IMO.
If the choice is to starve or work for this company, then it's pragmatic to work there. No, it's not ethical. That being said, not everyone is in the fortunate position where they can let their ethics decide where they work, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Yeah most engineers in defense work aren’t starved for jobs, but in fact are paid the most by military contractors. It’s like Snowden working for Booz Allen Hamilton, government contractors pay talented people a ton to advance their goals and keep their mouth shut. But they could make less working somewhere else
How far do you take it?
Work in food supply that feeds the people who make end weapons?
Working in that industry you're creating food. It's purpose is to nourish people. Working in an industry that makes weapons to harm, and kill is intrinsically different.
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.
But that may be an illusion, and your conscience may tell you about it - later.
I work for an aerospace and defense contractor. The vast majority of my activities over the years has been for non-military space flight, but not all of it, I've also worked on torpedos, missile defense, and other military systems.
When I started working for the company, it was on the space shuttle project, so the military part didn't even occur to me (though the shuttle did place some military payloads). When I was first asked to support the military side, I found myself doing some soul searching, and I decided the main question I had to ask myself was, "Should the United States have weapons or a military?" I pretty quickly decided the answer was yes.
Does that mean I agree with every military action the government has taken? No, far from it. But there have also been many I do agree with, and I for sure believe the country needs a strong military.
So yes, I believe it's ethical.
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.
Is it ethical to give tools to a country you don't trust to use them responsibly?
Countries don't exist. Only people.
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
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
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.
What if you work in HR at a major weapons manufacturer?
I don't think it is inherently unethical to work for a defense supplier, but it obviously depends on the country it is supplying. We in the West certainly need a strong defense industry. China and Russia both have publicly declared their intention to conquer other countries. Just ask Ukraine or Taiwan. Or Europe. Europe can't properly support Ukraine because its defense industry is so fragmented, politicized and atrophied.
But our defense industry sells arms to more or less anyone willing to pay. Most types of arms have basically become commodities, and the net effect of anyone producing more is that arms become cheaper and more accessible worldwide.
I'm no expert on arms control, but I'm pretty sure the industry in the West can only sell to approved countries. But, yes, I take your point that there is always some form of arms race happening in the world and keeping the arms industry going means having to sell more arms, which will be used to kill people at some point. Unfortunately, we still need a defense industry.
Good point.
I'd think that the work these folks in Ukraine are doing would be an example of ethical (and, my God, it must be fulfilling) defense work.
But just don't ask Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Lybia, Panama, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen... am I right?
Korea seems like a really bad example for you, since the South relies on the US to prevent invasion.
I wonder who was leading South Korea for like forty years after the war? There's no way it would a fascist dictator was it? Yes, no peace treaty was ever signed. What is your point exactly? Why do you think the north has somehow less of a claim than a country that had to be propped up by the world's biggest bully for decades?
Come on, more even the north admits they don't want unification, just that South Korea is their number one enemy.
As for the dictator, yes the was bad and dark times. But nowadays SK definitely doesn't want to get taken over by NK.
Yeah, since literally this year. Nearly sixty years on.
The US didn't seem to.see that as a problem.
No, do ask them. Go ahead. Some will try to outright murder you for unrelated reasons. Some do not regard the US as a threat any more and the rest will turn out to be goddam assholes you'd wish to be bombed again.
Ah yes, America killing literally tens of million: righteous! China killing literally no one, absolute scum of the earth!
Never takes much for the shoe to drop with you people.
Huh? China has been killing tons of people in their concentration camps.
When did America kill tens of millions? China certainly did kill tens of millions under Mao. Did you make a mistake and reverse the order?
You can't possibly be serious. You've got to be a troll.
Vietnam: 3~4,000,000 (not account for the the devastatinf effects of agent orange) Cambodia: 500,000 (not counting US involvement in continuing Khmer Rouge's massacres) Laos: 50,000 (not accounting for the still ongoing issue of unexploded ordinances) Korea: 2~4,000,000 Iraq desert storm: 1,000,000+ Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria: 400,00 direct violent deaths and 3~4,000,000 indirect deaths.
Shall I continue?
Not going to retract your comment about China then?
He has never claimed that China hasn't murdered anyone? Neither has he opposed your claim that China killed millions (which they sure did).
It's really sad to see this type of reactions when people try to say anything against the US. Questioning the US is not the same thing as supporting china, whatever US politicians want you to believe.
What? You clearly didn't read the thread. This was his comment:
"China killing literally no one, absolute scum of the earth!"
Edit: Also, I didn't try to excuse US killing. I just can't believe that anyone would claim that China has killed literally no one and then set that up against a claim that the US has killed tens of millions.
You're conflating policy failures (for which he absolutely took responsibility) to wars of aggression. If you can't see how these two aren't the same you can't be helped.
Found the tankie, lol!
Excusing Mao's world record mass murders as a "policy failure".
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
As a rule of thumb... no.
As soon as you are asking this seriously, the answer for you personally is: better don't.
You don't know the future, you can never know what will be done with the things you have built and who will be doing it.
If you are a young person, you are simply looking to make money (and maybe don't do much harm at the same time, but that's second priority), and I think that's quite OK for a while.
The older you get, the more weight you put on the question: what are you really doing there every day and for whose benefit?
Counterpoint: what about all the weapons used by Ukraine to defend itself and western democracy against Russian aggression and imperialism? Should those not have been made?
Edit: Editing my most top level comment to point out possible subsequent vote brigading. When this post was only half a day old I received way more upvotes than the people I debated. Now that this post has gotten older the ratio is closer to neutral without any new comments pointing to any flaws in my argument. Hence, I think my debate partners felt the need to involve their equally misled friends to downvote my arguments and upvote their previously negatively voted comments back into the positives. Seems very inorganic to me.
Edit 2: The above edit is mostly meant for my discussion thread with NeoNachtwaechter.
In peacetime, countries do not make as many weapons as they can. They make as many weapons as they think they need, based on how many weapons they think their rivals have. So when you make a weapon, you also make a lot of other countries make weapons. And this weapon buildup increases the risk of war.
In a perfectly peaceful world where autocracies can live side by side with democracies you may have a point. But autocratic Russia's war of aggression on democratic Ukraine certainly paints a different picture to your wishful thinking. The lesson for democratic countries is therefore clear: If you don't want to be invaded by uncooperative and irrational autocracies, you have to build up as much military capacity as your unpredictable systemic rivals. Remind me again, who had the military advantage by sheer numbers in the war on Ukraine?
Every resource spent on weapons is a resource not spent on infrastructure / education / what have you. Military expenditure is at best a necessary evil; a better option is to have just enough weapons to stop an enemy's initial attack, and to invest the rest of your resources into building industrial capacity that can be used for military production if the need arises.
Russia doesn't calculate how many weapons it needs to produce depending on how many Ukraine has. It's main threats are the other superpowers - the US and China. So of course in a conflict with Ukraine they will have a massive advantage.
Your first paragraph ist simply paraphrasing my entire comment, so you agree with me. Regarding your second paragraph: Then why did they attack and invade Ukraine, if it is neither a threat nor a rivaling power? Kind of looks like Ukraine having not enough arms to defend itself was one of the prime motives for Russia.
Right, I'm not saying countries should dismantle their armies, just that weapon manufacturing and stockpiling should be avoided as far as possible unless your country is under attack.
Ukraine was similarly lacking in arms from 1990 to 2014. Russia only felt the need to attack when it felt threatened that Ukraine might join NATO, because that could result in US troops on its doorstep.
Ah yea, Ukrainian does not want to follow orders for Russia or even considers joining NATO is for sure a very valid reason to attack, murder and rape Ukrainians! I totally forgot about this brilliant piece of Russian propaganda! But thanks for read from the Putin bible for us!!! I think the idea of all weapons are bad, is a idea born by people far far away from any dictators or aggressive neighbors etc. if you go to Ukraine, South Korea, Taiwan or Surinam, then you might realize this is a luxury stance. Not every redneck needs a AR, but there are people who only sink ships in the read sea, because fuck everyone else. I think working in defense is not bad, as long as you do not try to sell your tech to dictators or Mexican drug cartels. So it would be good if the company complies to certain values…
I don't think invading other people's countries is morally right. But the Russian decision to invade Ukraine was taken, in part, due to concern that Ukraine might join NATO.
My country won independence from the biggest empire in the history of the world through non-violent methods. This of course does not mean non-violent methods will always work. But going to war without trying peaceful methods first is a great way to commit suicide on a national level. And having more weapons does seem to encourage such behaviour.
Your argument is flawed in so many places I don't even know where to begin. So I'll start by assuming you are from India. You won your independence from the British due to many reasons, but the big one being that Britain itself lost interest in controlling your country after the Second World War and democratically voted on it in 1947. I don't see Russia ever losing interest in fully invading Ukraine anytime in the near future (or even entertain the notion to have a democratic vote on the matter), as their stated war goal is full control over Ukraine. Hence a peacful Ukrainian protest against Russian aggression would only result in Russian dominiance over Ukraine. And somehow Ukraine having less weapons in this situation would prompt Russia to scrap their invasion and go home to pre-2014 borders?
Countries do not have, or lose, interest in doing this or that on a whim. The British government agreed to Indian independence because continued large-scale protests were making it difficult to profitably exploit India's natural resources, and the home economy (and army) were in a state of rebuilding after WW2. Also, there was diplomatic pressure from the two superpowers to end colonialism.
Russia claims to be concerned with (1) Ukraine joining NATO, and (2) the treatment of the Russian minority in Ukraine. (In addition, Putin is probably using this war to rally domestic support, and weaken / arrest the opposition.) Would either of these concerns have been assuaged by a stronger Ukrainian military?
Again, I am not saying that violence should never be used. The Nazis, clearly, had to be defeated militarily. France had to be driven out of Vietnam. But violence should always be the last option. And the buildup of weapons encourages politicians to respond to any problem with force, which just makes things worse for everyone.
I wish I had a thorough answer for you, but I'm afraid it would be very, very complicated. This war came out of a complex situation and we (westerners) can understand only a fraction of it all.
But I give you just a simple idea to think about:
Imagine all these weapons would not have existed, on both sides, then maybe there would have been a war anyway, but probably much less killing and suffering.
you make an interesting point and it reminds me of a counter point: that modern wars might have higher death tolls than historical wars, but modern wars - with modern weapons - end up costing less life overall compared to the populations of the time.
for tribal conflict of humans past, victory could mean wiping out the other tribe - 50% death toll or higher. as weapons advanced and more efficient and more destructive tactics emerged, wars can be more violent and more deadly but shorter and with fewer deaths compared to the overall population. wars became efficient.
all this is to say that if we didn’t have modern weapons there would be more killing - not less. “victory” would necessitate more deaths.
I'm not so sure about that - appears like a theoretical argument to me. Today's real wars are going much too long to let this look plausible.
You'd have to read historical facts if you really want to compare wars. I would simply think about some people fighting with bare hands, and they get exhausted after only a few minutes (and may decide to make peace then), while some people fighting with guns can do that easily for years.
I agree with you in theory, but the current reality just does not give a fuck about wishful thinking. As long as there are despots like Putin, Xi Jinping, et al., who see our democratic values as a threat to their own autocratic views we simply have to live with the fact that we have to build weapons to deter their imperialistic goals.
Now that is not only too simple thinking, but it is also not true. As far as your weapons are used there, it is for your own imperialistic goals.
So you prefer autocracies over democracies? Am I understanding you correctly?
Now you are mixing up things badly. The answer is No. You are not understanding.
I think I am understanding you very well. You say democratic imperialism is just as bad as autocratic imperialism, creating a false balance when you agree that autocracies are inherently worse for humanity than democracies. Furthermore, Ukraine was attacked by a far more capable force than their own. They, by the very definition of imperialism, cannot be imperialistic by simply fighting for its own survival against an autocratic and clearly imperialist Russia.
nonono, there's no democratic imperialism. that's not aligning with our values that we let Ukrainians die for. please mind the talking points and don't mention Turkey.
I didn't bring it up, NeoNachtwaechter did. I simply continued to use the term to point out their hipocrisy.
However, there certainly is such a thing as democratic imperialism. What else would you call Nixon giving the order to overthrow the newly elected socialist Chilean president Allende in 1970 and then condoning the fascist Pinochet's coup to power in 1973? Or the USA's "war on terror" post-9/11 by invading inter alia Iraq and Afghanistan? I could go on.
No, you still don't.
I said nothing like that.
I said that your imperialism exists and that your weapons are used for it. But I did not judge your imperialism as better or worse or equal.
I also did not say that. You are making up lots and lots of things :-/
I don't even know whether or not you are living in a democratic country (but I think I can deduct from your texts that you think you do).
Carefully read your replies to my comments. My interpretation of your replies is made in good faith that you want to argue constructively against my position. Simply stating "no" to any of my questions just does not cut it without any evidence to support your opinion. I therefore must assume that you are arguing in favor of Russia, when you pull out whataboutisms and false balances about
without properly engaging and refuting my realist observations about Russia. You should learn debate discipline or to properly express your opinion to avoid such misinterpretarions, as your very open and underequipped replies leave just as much room to attack your position as Ukraine's open and underequppied situation before the war sparked Russian aggression.
It's a complex question, but I think the short answer is it depends on if your country has safeguards in place to control where that manufactured equipment goes. A few months ago I watched a video interview of a US State Department official who publicly resigned because he felt those safeguards (specifically laws of war and laws of proportionality) had been bypassed during recent arms transfer to Israel. I could see someone quitting their military manufacturing or engineering jobs for the same reasons. Whether or not you agree with how your nation's arms are being used is a matter of personal ethics and involves things like political accountability.
I know I want my country to have self-defense capabilities, and that means having a well-supplied military. Thus I support at least some arms manufacturing. I very much dislike the idea of it being entangled with major economic factors because I don't want war to make economic sense - i.e. "drive the industry". My guess is a lot of people worldwide would like to see less arms-for-profit trading because it makes military industrialists rich at the expense of weapons spreading around the world and often causing harm to innocent people.
do you feel what the united states spends on its military is proportionate to its direct defense requirement?
i think were up to 950b/year in 'danger'
Honestly, I'm not wise/educated enough to give a certain answer. I sure feel like there's a lot more spending being done than is probably required, and the DoD has failed multiple audits for 6 years now. So there's cause for concern or at least accountability about where the US taxpayer's money is ending up. The DoD budget could buy a lot of infrastructure, teachers, healthcare, debt relief, etc. so it's not unreasonable for citizens to want to know what they're gaining in exchange for giving those things up.
On the other hand, I live in Canada and the hard truth is we rely on the USA for a lot of our military needs. I know if Putin decides Ukraine isn't enough and he starts eyeing Canadian land (say in the Arctic), then I'm going to want to know NATO can win. My final take is probably that US military spending could be moderated, but cuts should be made carefully with justification.
No. I left the military because I couldn't morally justify staying in.
I think this question boils down to this: Do your actions have a net positive or a net negative affect on the world? Does working at this company in some way offset the harm that the company is doing downstream? In this case I have a hard time coming up with a reasonable way in which this might be the case. Paying you and your family to have stuff doesn't offset causing actual death and physical harm.
I mean ... not saying I necessarily agree, but isn't the logical counter argument being defense and deterrence?
I use to be much much more ideologically against arms production, but honestly, seeing what's happening in Ukraine has given me some pause and caused me to reflect a lot. When a tyrant like Putin can amass a huge amount of weaponry and just decide to invade and impose a totalitarian dictatorship on a neighbouring country, and the only thing that has stopped him is a mass amount of better weaponry, it muddies the moral waters a bit.
This is true, but on a personal level I have no idea how to do the calculus for, "My work is killing people, but it would have been worse if it hadn't." I think the show "The Good Place" got it right and it is just too interconnected and complicated to actually derive an answer as to whether an action is net negative or positive. That said, if I had to place money on a given action being negative, working for an arms manufacturer would be one I'd be fairly comfortable betting on.
No. But people have different ideas of what's ethical and what's not.
If you ask in a pro military or Conservative space you'll probably be told "yes".
You'll have to decide for yourself whether you could live with working for such a company. Everyone needs to eat and if that's your best choice for work then it may not be such an easy choice.
No.
No
Fuck no.
No.
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
- The Good Place
Definitely not if you have the opportunity to work somewhere else.
If it's a choice then no I don't think it's ethical. If it's the only job you can get and you absolutely need it to survive or you're facing threat of war from another country that's a harder issue.
But assuming you aren't forced to do it and it's entirely your choice in time of peace: choosing to make weapons of war isn't very ethical IMO. That's a pretty huge assumption, though. Real life is rarely so simple.
nope, not if you care about human beings. the united states especially is under no threat requiring a near trillion dollar a year 'defense'
the military-industrial complex is a jobs-welfare program, but none of them will admit they are welfare recipients.
many people can overlook their particular part as 'well, my role isnt making a bullet that will go through a human, so what i do for this company is ok'
im not that delusional.
People are amazingly good at this.
"I just make the munitions, I don't use them".
"I just load the munitions, I don't actually fire the weapon".
"I just fire the weapon, I didn't put my target into the warzone".
"If I wasn't, someone else would anyway".
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.
Of course not
Yes. Defense is important. Pacifism is unworkable in today's geopolitical sphere. Weapons create peace.
If you're worried about ethics, it's going to be very difficult finding a job that will make you a living that is ethical.
I mean... you can upstream everything. I work for a place that sells outdoor sports gear. Pretty benign unless you do a deep dive into supply chains and the like.
For the record, I did work at a place the built parts for cruise missiles. It sucked. I quit
Absolutely not.
Yes Ukraine is an example of a good use for a defense industry but US history is littered with tragedies, massacres and massive amounts of suffering from all the other bad things having a defense industry does.
I started in defense, but I would now after 15+ years not do any work in defense or gambling or trading. It was a good experience for me though, taught me a lot, but I wouldn't do it again now.
I've just received an offer from a large company in the gambling industry. I am somewhat conflicted about taking it, on one hand I feel adults should be allowed to decide to waste some money at a casino and I have no issue with gambling as an activity. But, while I don't feel gambling is inherently bad, I am aware that the companies in the industry are incredibly predatory and invest significant amounts of resources into making their products and services as addictive as possible.
My current job is basically just helping further the CCP's global expansion so I feel gambling is somewhat better ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Im hoping for another offer from a company who do software for the insurance industry, that would be first prize...
Would there be any aspect of defense you would consider? For example another comment mentioned situational awareness, etc. Basically weapons systems which might STOP them from being used on civilians?
No, I blacklisted the whole industry and will not take any job there.
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.
This is something I wrestle with sometimes as an engineering student and I think it does vary from country to country. You’ve got to ask yourself how the world would be different without those companies - whether other less friendly countries would come to prominence and whether the removal of the such a deterrence would make wars more common. But on the other hand, you should think about how those weapons are used and whether it’s ‘right’ like the defence of Ukraine, or more objectionable like some of the more polarising conflicts around the world. It’s a very difficult question but personally I don’t think I would work for a weapons company coz I don’t know how I’d feel about making something that is designed to kill people
I don’t think it’s ethical. But if it’s take that job or lose my house? I’ll take the job until I can find something better.
The problem I have with working for military contractors is you never know wtf the government is going to do with them. When Trump was elected dude wanted to nuke a hurricane. Weapons in the wrong hands is very dangerous and is the biggest concern I have. Which is also kind of why I want a meritocracy system to stop stupid shit from happening.
Anyways, I diverge. If you had no other choice than to work for a company that kills people then maybe? Lots of those guys also do space exploration or something as well so I'm sure you could find something without making weapons.
As a Buddhist no it's absolutely not, as trading in weapons is specifically prohibited by the Right Livelihood part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Otherwise I see no problem.
No - it's not ethical.
Very little evil is actually a direct result of evil people doing evil things. The vast majority of it comes to be through ordinary people doing banal things - things that, like building weapons, are questionable at best, but that they excuse because it's "out of my control."
The thing is that it's not out of their control. Yes - if one individual makes the decision to not take part, that's not going to have much of an effect, but if every person who feels the same way makes that same choice, that absolutely WILL have an effect.
And there's only one way to make it so that every person who feels the same way makes that choice, and that's for each one of them, individually, to look past that "it's out of my control" bullshit excuse and go ahead and do it.
Everything on any significant scale is out of individual control. Individuals just possess a very limited amount of control over affairs on a national, much less global, scale. But that's really entirely beside the point. The point is how you choose to exercise the small amount of control you have. Will you use it for good, or for evil?
I think the argument is kinda weak, because from my decision to do something (like construct a weapon) the other workers at the factories don't change their opinion. For these kinds of events to happen, there must either already be a huge grudge in the workforce, so that you're the "tipping point", or you have to be as charismatic as a reborn Jesus and convince everyone to follow you. Both of these events seem implausible here. Thus, your decision to make or not make a weapon will not influence others, and the outcome won't be significant.
However, I'd love to have your input on it. I think the question if for the judgment of an action it is important that it is significant (or not) is a fundamentally important one, so I'd really appreciate your response here :)
And some number of those workers have the exact same opinion that you do - they're opposed, but they don't think they can make a difference.
And if all of you stopped waiting around for some charismatic leader to tell you what to do and just went ahead and made the choice you prefer, you would make a difference.
Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn't true. Lots of people have tried rebelling and fighting against a regime, but failed. So this logic doesn't apply in every case, does it?
How did you not get my point?
We'll try it this way:
Thirty people live in a town.
Ten of them, with a leader, want some policy implemented
Twenty of them oppose the policy.
The ten with a leader organize and push for the policy
The twenty who oppose it stand around with their thumbs up their asses, each of them telling themselves that they can't accomplish anything by themselves.
The policy gets implemented
Or
The ten with a leader organize and push for a policy.
The twenty who oppose it each, individually, pull their thumbs out of their asses and stand up and say they oppose it.
Each of those individuals, making their individual choices, finds themselves surrounded by nineteen other individuals who made the same individual choice.
They easily outnumber the ten who want the policy and the policy fails.
That's exactly how and why individuals going ahead and making their individual choices instead of failing to do it because "I can't make a difference by myself" can make a difference.
All they have to do is stop waiting around for somebody to lead them, pull their thumbs out of their asses, and just go ahead and do it on their own, each one as an individual.
Okay, let me rephrase - for me it sounds that if people work together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Aka, if I am one of the twenty who sit around and do nothing, stand up, I on my own probably won't be able to block the policy. But if I stand up, there's a good chance others will get up as well and do. Or maybe I'll discover that after I stand up, there are three others of whom I haven't suspected anything, but who now also oppose the policy. And thus by standing up, you also influence others. If that is successful (aka if you can stop the policy or not), you can only find out afterwards.
Is that right?
It's ethical, the parts will be made whether you work that job or not, and you're only responsible for the actions of the military to the extent that you're able to change them.
Since none of your reasonable options will make an impact on the production or use of those items, it's not a ethical issue for you to work there.
What matters much more is your ability to provide for yourself and those around you.
Obviously not, as you might have heard, those things are used to kill people.
Was the reason I quit my last job.
Collectively, no. Personally, yes. People deserve to make a living.
I'll just leave this here
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.
Ah yes. Bigger, better, more deadly weapons will definitely help reduce deaths.
It's all just lining the pockets of weapons manufacturers.
Hell no
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.
no and ive always refused to do it but actually im fucked now so maybe i would
If it was to like the Japanese self defense force? Sure.
If it's to the US and going towards bombing civilians all across the world? Hell no.
Depends on the country.
Why shouldn't you?
https://youtu.be/tH0bTpwQL7U?si=7ByDetoR44Pmy24J
yes
Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
Yes. I don't want my effort to be dedicated to death and destruction. Imagine you're the guy who designed the iconic Tomahawk cruise missile. You can't mistake that profile. Every time you see or hear about one of those things being launched you know there's a good chance many people are going to die. Who wants that on their conscience?
There's a difference, in my opinion, between designing a weapon and just being a generic worker at the company.
As a generic worker, the end result isn't any different whether it was you or someone else. For example, I don't think a guy who works at a Tesla factory could be considered responsible if the self driving malfunctions and kills someone. He might have directly contributed to the car that got built, but if he didn't work that job the car would have still been made and the tragedy would still have happened.
That missile may be used by Ukraine defending against Russians attackers trying to kill them. Sure people die as a result of your work, but you also allow others to live.
The real unethical thing is for anyone - regardless of where you work - to allow your military weapons to be used for "evil". (Note that I didn't define evil)
From my perspective, definitely if for Ukraine. I think it depends on what you can reasonably infer the weapons will be used for. If that use lines up with your beliefs, go for it.
YouTube has taught me that weapons are only used against menacing watermelons and disturbed canisters, in your backyard.
/s
Orthogonal to ethics. If you'd specify a country, then I could answer that question.
Probably fine if you are the janitor. If you are the engineer in charge of maximising "effectiveness" of weaponry well....
I'm going to disagree on that one. Anything to do that helps enabling it is morally wrong.
Paying taxes? Most of that goes to military spending in the US
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.
That's factually not true.
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.
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.
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?
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?
By asking the question, you've already decided.
No. Absolutely not. This is how their tools put them above you in power. You get to use their tools, but only to increase their power over you.
Yes.
Pacifism is a moronic stance as a rule, born out of coddled overprivileged upbringings. War and weaponry have been a cornerstone of humanity since the first time a guy brained another guy with a rock.
Not building weapons simply means you'll have fewer, nobody else will do you the courtesy of not attacking you because you were nice and didn't proliferate.
There's a reason the most peaceful country on earth, Switzerland, has most adults as trained members of the reserves, and everyone has access to state mandated weapons of war either in their homes or their local armouries.
Yes it is. You are not the one ordering purchasing or using those.
You boycott by not buying Nestlé not by not working in it.
What?! You can come up with marketing campaigns to misguide and deceive the public, also makes your livelihood depends on it. But as long as you are not buying, then you are fine?!
The entire nestle company, from marketing, to research, to engineer, to accounting, are hired for one singular purpose: making people buy their products. people working in nestle are THE driving force for others to buy nestle product.
I understand life is complex and sometimes people have no choice, but that doesn't make bad choice less bad, and unethical choice ethical. I wouldn't judge people just because they work in nestle; but I would not work for nestle if I can.
Find me a company that is not evil. Should we become all eco-beekepers or starve?
Following your reasoning all marketing jobs should be unethical. Where do you draw the line?
No, working is not unethical no matter who pays you.
Reality is more complex than ideals.
Although it is true that no organization is perfect, there are certainly better companies v.s. worse companies. For example, I believe Linux foundation is more ethical than Nestle, Mozilla is more ethical than Facebook, world bank is more ethical than American military.
If all company is equally evil, then you probably won't boycott nestle, because all of them are the same.
Hence, to me, there are certainly more ethical job than other jobs, depends what you are contributing to. I would argue a gardener in charge of planting and preserving local plants, is more ethical than CEO of nestle. Marketing at EFF is probably a more ethical job than marketing for nestle.
Of course, if you would starve if you don't work in nestle, then the society has failed you, it is not your fault. This is why I said that I wouldn't judge a person solely because they work at nestle, it really depends on their alternative.
I understand different person realize their ethical standards to different extent, I personally won't accept a job from nestle, no matter how much they are paying me if I have the opportunity to earn a living wage as a barista, waiter, janitor, or any other job.
Finally, I believe "working is not unethical" seems misguided, by this logic CEO of nestle is ethical, he claim water shouldn't be a human right, which indeed helps their company sell more product and make more money (like everyone else at nestle). Hence his claim is completely ethical, just because making money is in his job description?
Like you said, real life is complicated, hence I believe blanketed statements like "working is not unethical" probably won't hold true.
I think you are correct on most of it, but judging if somebody has or not alternatives is impossible. Of course everybody has alternatives, at least in the western world, but still lots of good and ethical people work for Nestlé.
It's fine. The designers of a weapon aren't responsible for how its used.
Do you live in the united states or any of its allies? If yes, then no, it is not ethical.
So if you're Russian, sure, go for it!
What a very intelligent take.
Or Chinese, yes lol
Who would win: one American who thinks about ethics or 5 hungry Chinese who don't even know the word "ethics"?