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

101–110 of 147 posts

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

#101

Post by Fins »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #93
darawk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

The question is also, "How is this going to be used, and is it necessary?" Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler. But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? Furthering drone strike technology? Given that there was no need for that at all, I can't say that's ethical.

When the next Hitler comes (and knowing human nature it is quite likely), it will be a bit late to start designing weapons to fight him.

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

#102

Post by Lionsion »

fatjokes wrote: post #73
darawk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's unethical about collaborating with the military? We don't exist in a vacuum. American military hegemony has been an extremely powerful stabilizing force, post-WWII. This idea that it is unethical to build weapons is profoundly wrong, short sighted, and morally selfish. Not to overly pick on your comment, since you did say that it can be ethical, of course. But i've seen this sentiment that military work is une…

That's exactly what I meant when I said it's nothing to be ashamed of, somebody's gotta do it. Just don't kid yourself that it makes you ethical. Sure, you could argue that you're "better than the other guy" or "they started it", but that's a pretty low bar. It just means you're both unethical.

> Sure, you could argue that you're "better than the other guy" or "they started it", but that's a pretty low bar. It just means you're both unethical.

Something about supporting the military when it means resisting oppressive authoritarian hegemony, for instance, seems pretty ethical to me.

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

#103

Post by lopmotr »

gpm wrote: post #92
aaronblohowiak wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Wage slavery” as it is often used is a bad term that takes away from the fact that there are more total people in slavery or forced labor than ever before in the history of the world. Chattel slavery is repugnant and debases all moral people. Working a shitty job for low pay and an asshole boss sucks but is a difference in kind, not degree.

You literally just stated the opposite of what I was arguing as if it was a fact, with no argument given. And to be clear, we are well beyond "asshole boss" or anything legal in the western world. We are considering a situation where you are treated identically to a slave except that instead of being forced to work via beatings and supplied food, you are supplied just enough money to eat - buying everything at the co…

> well otherwise you starve to death

That's why such work is a good thing, not a bad thing. It saves people from starving to death. Which is what happens periodically during famines in extremely undeveloped countries, such as most of history.

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

#104

Post by tech_opn »

Hey folks --

Thanks to everybody who read the editorial and commented! We're glad that it's generating some discussion.

We're interested in writing another piece on MIT and the military. A lot of these comments contain useful information and we'd love to hear more tip from you all for future pieces -- if you have any information regarding the topic (regardless of how trivial or how well-known you think the information is), we'd really appreciate it if you could email opinion@the-tech.mit.edu.

Further, if you're affiliated with MIT and you're interested in writing a letter to the editor in response to this piece, we'd love that as well -- please email letters letters@tech.mit.edu.

Thanks so much everybody!

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

#105

Post by lvs »

tech_opn wrote: post #104

Hey folks -- Thanks to everybody who read the editorial and commented! We're glad that it's generating some discussion. We're interested in writing another piece on MIT and the military. A lot of these comments contain useful information and we'd love to hear more tip from you all for future pieces -- if you have any information regarding the topic (regardless of how trivial or how well-known you think the informatio…

Just a brief note of support here. It's really moving to see the younger generation taking this on. Great work, and keep on fighting the good fight.

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

#106

Post by tech_opn »

lvs wrote: post #105
tech_opn wrote: post #104

Hey folks -- Thanks to everybody who read the editorial and commented! We're glad that it's generating some discussion. We're interested in writing another piece on MIT and the military. A lot of these comments contain useful information and we'd love to hear more tip from you all for future pieces -- if you have any information regarding the topic (regardless of how trivial or how well-known you think the informatio…

Just a brief note of support here. It's really moving to see the younger generation taking this on. Great work, and keep on fighting the good fight.

Thanks so much! :) Also for anybody reading this - I'd really appreciate if you could upvote my comment so more people can see it!

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

#107

Post by larry_d »

tech_opn wrote: post #104

Hey folks -- Thanks to everybody who read the editorial and commented! We're glad that it's generating some discussion. We're interested in writing another piece on MIT and the military. A lot of these comments contain useful information and we'd love to hear more tip from you all for future pieces -- if you have any information regarding the topic (regardless of how trivial or how well-known you think the informatio…

Super glad to see people taking on issues of holding institutions accountable to at least acknowledging the way their investments support immoral actors.

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

#108

Post by refurb »

cup wrote: post #51
darawk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's unethical about collaborating with the military? We don't exist in a vacuum. American military hegemony has been an extremely powerful stabilizing force, post-WWII. This idea that it is unethical to build weapons is profoundly wrong, short sighted, and morally selfish. Not to overly pick on your comment, since you did say that it can be ethical, of course. But i've seen this sentiment that military work is une…

>an extremely powerful stabilizing force For the American empire. Less so for the rest of the world.

I'd say preventing a nuclear war is pretty damn stabilizing across the world.

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

#110

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

darawk wrote: post #43
fatjokes wrote: post #29

If it makes MIT feel better, I don't think "ethics" when I think of MIT. I think technological leadership and excellence, but definitely not ethics. For starters, they have plenty of collaborations with the military (e.g., MIT Lincoln Labs; not saying that can't be ethical... but it usually means someone's going to die). Nothing to be ashamed of. Somebody's gotta do it...

What's unethical about collaborating with the military? We don't exist in a vacuum. American military hegemony has been an extremely powerful stabilizing force, post-WWII. This idea that it is unethical to build weapons is profoundly wrong, short sighted, and morally selfish. Not to overly pick on your comment, since you did say that it can be ethical, of course. But i've seen this sentiment that military work is une…

There are several reasons. First, weapons are made to kill. Even if they're not used, if they're finally used, the result is someone's death.

Second, the USA is not only stabilizing peace, but from time to time disrupts it. Sometimes a war is waged without proper consideration. I think Iraq is the best example, but the intervention in Afghanistan wasn't necessary either.

Third, even if you say the above were just mistakes, and the leaders of the USA had good intentions, weapons are a product just like everything else, and so they're sold. The USA has a list of "good" and "bad" states, but circumstances change very quickly nowadays. Also, once you sell a weapon, even to a "good" state, you lose control.

On the other hand, there are some military applications that are actually meant to save lives rather than taking them. One good example is clearing land mines - I guess no engineer would have any problems helping in constructing a robot that would disarm mines and other explosives.

Post reply on HN