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

111–120 of 147 posts

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

#111

Post by mattmanser »

darawk wrote: post #100
s73v3r_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler You can't just decide to make weapons when Hitler shows up. You need to be ready before Hitler shows up. > But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? I'm no fan of the Iraq war. However, if we are going to fight the Iraq war, i'd certainly like us to have say, better targeted munitions, and I think Iraqi civilians would too. >…

This is a ridiculous defence.

If you make weapons, you are a killer. If there were really a hell, you would be going to it.

Be you a blacksmith who crafts swords in the 10th century or a software developer who makes military drone software in the 21st.

That you celebrate the use of drones, which save the life of one American at the expense of many innocent non-Americans, shows how utterly morally bankrupt your views are.

Military drones are an evil, allowing the US to wage wars and kill innocents in "collateral damage", otherwise known as mass-murder, without the PR backlash of losing soldiers.

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

#112

Post by majewsky »

darawk wrote: post #100
s73v3r_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler You can't just decide to make weapons when Hitler shows up. You need to be ready before Hitler shows up. > But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? I'm no fan of the Iraq war. However, if we are going to fight the Iraq war, i'd certainly like us to have say, better targeted munitions, and I think Iraqi civilians would too. >…

> I'm a huge fan of drone strikes, so yes, to that one. That isn't to say i'm a huge fan of their indiscriminate use, of course. But if you're going to do some targeted killings, why not use drones? It exposes our soldiers to less risk, and allows for better, dispassionate targeting aided by automated tools. I think that's a great thing.

I think you got the correlation backwards here. You imply that we use drones because we had to do so many targeted killings that it would mean a huge risk for the soldiers. To me, it appears the other way around: The only way you can have so many targeted killings is because you're not putting your own people at risk anymore.

One scenario, you have maybe a hundred of your own soldiers killed in battle. The other scenario, you have thousands and thousands of foreign civilians killed by not-so-targeted killings. Of course the government will always have to side with its own citizens, so they relabel the civilians as terrorists to prevent cognitive dissonance.

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

#113

Post by majewsky »

darawk wrote: post #91
fatjokes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I respectfully disagree. Consider a thought experiment: You have two groups of people. Group A is ethical (per your definition), well intentioned and smart. Group B is cruel, authoritarian and egotistical. Group A doesn't like to think about war, and certainly doesn't want to contribute to the machinery of war. Group B, on the other hand, delights in it. Group B loves building weapons and thinking about military stra…

> Very quickly in this civilization, Group B will come to dominate Group A, and they will build a world in their own image - cruel and inhuman.

You're skipping the important part of the argument here, and going directly from the premise to your desired outcome without arguing why that will happen.

If what you describe were the unconditional outcome, how is it that our world is not gradually becoming more cruel and inhuman? I mean, there certainly are cruel and inhuman aspects to it, but for the most part, we live in a world that's vastly more prosperous and sophisticated than any other epoch before that, and also less violent. You included the link to Our World In Data yourself to prove that point.

Obviously, there are other aspects that contribute to the success of a society besides its military engagement. This can arguably be seen in how the influence of the US is slowly diminishing even though they have the largest military expenses by a wide margin.

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

#114

Post by rayiner »

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…

> This idea that it is unethical to build weapons is profoundly wrong, short sighted, and morally selfish.

Right. Anything unethical about building photon torpedoes for the federation? No.

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

#115

Post by aaronblohowiak »

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…

I presented a different view, not an argument. I stated my view as fact because it is in fact how I see the world. For arguments about chattel slavey and wage Labour, the Wikipedia article does a pretty good job: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

There are people in the world who are functionally chattel slaves who happen to receive a nominal wage, but this is not what the term “wage slavery” typically refers to; that term (and perhaps your argument, though I am not sure) equivocates wage labor with chattel slavery. I and others believe the difference is vast, important, and moral.

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

#116

Post by badpun »

skookumchuck wrote: post #87
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…

> slavery built everything we love Not at all. The repudiation of slavery built everything we love. The Confederacy went to war with the Union to protect its failing economy. Their loss in the Civil War resulted in the utter destruction of the slave economy and what it produced.

The enormous profits from the slave plantations were in part put into the industry that developed in the north, providing lots of the much-needed starting capital. The US wouldn't be where they're at today without the exploitation of slaves.

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

#117

Post by darawk »

mattmanser wrote: post #111
darawk wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler You can't just decide to make weapons when Hitler shows up. You need to be ready before Hitler shows up. > But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? I'm no fan of the Iraq war. However, if we are going to fight the Iraq war, i'd certainly like us to have say, better targeted munitions, and I think Iraqi civilians would too. >…

This is a ridiculous defence. If you make weapons, you are a killer. If there were really a hell, you would be going to it. Be you a blacksmith who crafts swords in the 10th century or a software developer who makes military drone software in the 21st. That you celebrate the use of drones, which save the life of one American at the expense of many innocent non-Americans, shows how utterly morally bankrupt your views…

It's like you didn't even read what I said. The world isn't a moral vacuum. You abdicating power does not mean that nobody has it. It means someone else does. If all of the 'good' people say "weapons and war are immoral", guess who is in control of all the weapons and war? It's really pretty easy to think through, and it's really pretty naive to bury your head in the sand.

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

#118

Post by darawk »

majewsky wrote: post #112
darawk wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler You can't just decide to make weapons when Hitler shows up. You need to be ready before Hitler shows up. > But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? I'm no fan of the Iraq war. However, if we are going to fight the Iraq war, i'd certainly like us to have say, better targeted munitions, and I think Iraqi civilians would too. >…

> I'm a huge fan of drone strikes, so yes, to that one. That isn't to say i'm a huge fan of their indiscriminate use, of course. But if you're going to do some targeted killings, why not use drones? It exposes our soldiers to less risk, and allows for better, dispassionate targeting aided by automated tools. I think that's a great thing. I think you got the correlation backwards here. You imply that we use drones bec…

Yes, I understand that problem and you are correct. However, I still believe they are on balance a good thing. Let me be absolutely precise though: I would prefer a world without complex weapons. However, that world isn't on the menu. Given that someone is going to develop these things, I want it to be the entity I distrust least. On the world stage at the moment, that is the USG.

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

#119

Post by darawk »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #110
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…

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 mis…

In a moral vacuum, I agree. If I could flip a switch and permanently erase nuclear weapons from the world, I think i'd probably flip that switch. However, we don't exist in a world with switches like that. Any weapon the US doesn't develop out of some moral sensibility, another state like Russian or China will. Ceding military strength is not virtuous, it's naive. The choice isn't between "should these weapons exist or not", it's "who should have them?". And the answer to that choice is: the entity you distrust least. For me that's the USG. I distrust them, just less than I do the other candidates.

And this is an extremely critical moral choice, because it's the only real one. Any other choice is just burying your head in the sand and saying the world doesn't exist.

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

#120

Post by darawk »

rayiner wrote: post #114
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…

> This idea that it is unethical to build weapons is profoundly wrong, short sighted, and morally selfish. Right. Anything unethical about building photon torpedoes for the federation? No.

I didn't say it was unethical to build weapons for anyone. I said it wasn't unethical to help build them at all. We don't live in a vacuum. If you don't build weapons for the side you prefer, someone else will for the side they prefer. And if all the 'good' people don't support the side they like, guess which side gets all the weapons? If you don't have any 'ethical' people in the military, guess who makes all the decisions? This is really so easy to think through, and the only moral conclusion is pretty clear.
Post reply on HN