Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

thetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 147 posts

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#61

Post by galago »

bobthechef wrote: post #57
maxxxxx wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just look at all the beautiful castles and churches in Europe. They were mostly built on the backs of peasants. Or all the generals we revere who sent thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who had not much to gain from the war to their deaths.

> Just look at all the beautiful castles and churches in Europe. They were mostly built on the backs of peasants. That's not accurate. Skilled workers built those. > Or all the generals we revere who sent thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who had not much to gain from the war to their deaths. Who exactly? That does not sound representative.

That's true in pre-European contact Peru as well. The amazing architecture was produced by skilled craftsman as a community effort. They didn't/couldn't build anything of quality once they were enslaved by the Spanish. (I'm not an expert, but I visited Peru a couple years ago)

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#62

Post by knuththetruth »

darawk wrote: post #56
knuththetruth wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as human consciousness, morality, and our understanding of history have evolved, the question we now ask is “Stability for whom?” Certainly not for Latin America during the Cold War, for example. Those who oppose collaborating with the military do so because “America military hegemony” has been used for all kinds of horrors, including recent events like the Iraq War. There’s nothing naive about not wanting to…

The fact that violence has happened does not mean that it isn't substantially less than it was. The decrease in rates of violence in modern history is profound, and has been discussed at length, here's a chart: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/6 Do you see how it goes down since 1950? The fact that the US has been involved in conflicts is not evidence that the US, on balance, creates more violence…

>Talking about civilian deaths de-contextualized from the reality of the alternatives is exactly what I mean by 'naive'.

The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did, because a lot of people embrace a kind of unquestioning idea of authority as “good,” to which you seem to subscribe.

>And that is the only decision that matters.

You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.”

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#63

Post by hokus »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #52
dragonmum wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the suicide rate at Foxconn during that period was lower than the overall Chinese or US suicide rate. Please allow me to change your opinion on this. The comparison being made there is the ( number of suicides at Foxconn / number of Foxconn employees ) vs number of suicides in China / population of China. At first glance, this looks like a valid comparison. But it is not. It is actually comparing apples to oranges.…

Why do you think the Foxconn suicide figures don't include all suicide attempts by employees? Note that one of the attempts catalogued on Wikipedia states that one Mr. 刘 "threw himself from the sixth floor of a dormitory building ". That would tend to imply that the statistics cover the workers while they're on or off the job -- the statistics are for suicide attempts on campus, but the employees live on campus. And…

Its much simpler actually.

If you have a bunch of companies trying to keep their shit together while barely able to make their product and then someone kills himself simple because the situation is no longer worth living - then it is a sad thing.

If the product is one of the most successful things in human history the suicide is a design goal.

If we don't stand up to it and at least voice our objection we will all be treated like that eventually - regardless of corporate success or personal productivity.

The only other role is that of the psychopath pressuring those who do the work in order to meet the suicide quota. If you don't meet the suicide quota your workers are not working hard enough or you are paying them to much. It's simple business logic nothing personal.

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#64

Post by gpm »

lopmotr wrote: post #38
komali2 wrote: post #4

A lot of righteous, eloquent fury here. I had nearly forgotten about the foxconn suicides, and now that I think about it I don't remember anything really happening except nets being put up. Louis CK (RIP our opinion of him, but still) put it pretty well once, something along the lines of "slavery built everything we love. We just throw human death and suffering at a thing until it's done. There's no end to what you c…

Apart from actual slavery with chains and guns, often the people suffering are suffering less doing the productive work than they would be otherwise because they do it by choice. So you could equally say "reducing human suffering has brought us all the things we love". Even when people die, they've taken a risk doing the dangerous job instead of whatever else which was worse. Anyone who drives to work is doing that -…

It's an interesting claim that they are suffering less because they are doing it by choice. I'm not sure if it's true.

Doing it by choice creates all sorts of ill psychological effects. It means I have to convince myself to keep doing it, and as a result I'll try to convince myself of things like "it's fair" or "I like this" or so on. I think I might actually be happier as a slave than a wage slave doing the exact same shitty work and ridiculous hours as a slave because at least I can be honest with myself about the situation.

Normally wage slavery is better - because it means that the employers can't enforce quite as shitty conditions or long hours as a actual slave. But it's not clear to me that that is happening here, and even if it is happening here if you understood your argument to rely on it.

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#65

Post by MadSudaca »

tzs wrote: post #39

> It is a well-documented fact that Apple products are built through the exploitation of laborers in foreign factories, who must work deplorable hours for pitiable wages. It's also pretty well documented that Apple does at least as much as, and usually for more than, any other major consumer electronics company to make its suppliers improve working conditions and wages. I'm curious how Apple compares to whoever made…

I bet the wages are not pitiable for the people that work there.

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#66

Post by darawk »

knuththetruth wrote: post #62
darawk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that violence has happened does not mean that it isn't substantially less than it was. The decrease in rates of violence in modern history is profound, and has been discussed at length, here's a chart: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/6 Do you see how it goes down since 1950? The fact that the US has been involved in conflicts is not evidence that the US, on balance, creates more violence…

>Talking about civilian deaths de-contextualized from the reality of the alternatives is exactly what I mean by 'naive'. The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did, because a lot of people embrace a kind of unquestioning idea of authority as “good,” to which you seem to subscribe. >And…

> The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did

You'll get no disagreement from me there. Like I said, and you seem to want to ignore, the US has done bad things. The question isn't "has this entity ever done anything wrong", the question you have to answer is: from the pool of available options, who's best?

> You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.”

It's your appeal that's simplistic. You're taking the world as you'd like it to be, rather than how it actually is. Someone has to have power. And if it's not the people you support, who's it going to be?

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#67

Post by Rescis »

tclancy wrote: post #40
evanpw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides ), the suicide rate at Foxconn during that period was lower than the overall Chinese or US suicide rate.

Congrats on the greatest ACKCHYUALLY of all time.

I believe this comment neither adds to the discussion, nor brings up a valid point.

When people discuss anything, all parties should strive for intellectual honesty. As the grandparent post used a false example, then it helps all sides involved to correct that and prevent it from happening again.

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#68

Post by varenc »

prepend wrote: post #25

I just figured MIT was making “easy” ethical statements. In general the examples that MIT spoke out about had no opposing parties, had no impact to MIT, and no repercussions. So MIT didn’t really have to care or make a sacrifice to speak out for Dreamers or against Charlottesville and whatnot. But for anything that requires sacrifice like MBS not giving an endowment, they suck it up. This is what sucks as wishy washy…

Can you elaborate on MIT's problems with sexual assault? That's news to me. If true, I'm pretty sad to hear about this. As an aging alum, MIT is still a place dear to my heart but over time it feels like the institute I remember is slipping away... (or I'm just becoming more aware of reality)

(also not clear if you're referring to MIT or some other 'well respected engineering school').

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#69

Post by cma »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #52
dragonmum wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the suicide rate at Foxconn during that period was lower than the overall Chinese or US suicide rate. Please allow me to change your opinion on this. The comparison being made there is the ( number of suicides at Foxconn / number of Foxconn employees ) vs number of suicides in China / population of China. At first glance, this looks like a valid comparison. But it is not. It is actually comparing apples to oranges.…

Why do you think the Foxconn suicide figures don't include all suicide attempts by employees? Note that one of the attempts catalogued on Wikipedia states that one Mr. 刘 "threw himself from the sixth floor of a dormitory building ". That would tend to imply that the statistics cover the workers while they're on or off the job -- the statistics are for suicide attempts on campus, but the employees live on campus. And…

Someone quits or is fired and within a week commits suicide. Not counted. If that's the case, it is another reason it isn't fair to compare with national numbers.

And if someone lives on corporate campus but commits suicide off of a bridge in town, not counted?

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#70

Post by varenc »

megaman22 wrote: post #22
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 1.4% tax on endowment income is consider being hard hit?

If they invested it at all wisely, they should have made at least 5% over the past year. When I was at Dartmouth during the great recession a decade ago, they were gloating that they were nevertheless still making gains on the endowment, as the rest of the world crashed.

Last fiscal year MIT's investments earned a 14.3% profit or $1.86 in gains. The principle is now $14.8B. Agreed that 1.4% doesn't feel too crazy... http://news.mit.edu/2017/endowment-figures-2017-0908

Though curiously, MIT's own estimation of the new tax says it'll only cost $10M. If MIT really made $2.1B in one year on just investments, an extra $10M seems pretty manageable. (though this also seems far less than the 1.4% cited, so not sure what's going on).

Here's where MIT mentions the $10M in new taxes: http://news.mit.edu/2017/letter-regarding-new-federal-tax-bi...

Post reply on HN