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

Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

joeroussos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#51

Post by kd5bjo »

ojnabieoot wrote: post #44
kd5bjo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Engaging with the question itself is assuming responsibility. This is a dangerous sentiment as it incentivizes people to not engage with such questions in order to avoid the accompanying duty, which cannot be known before considering the question.

To be clear the question is not “is this morally questionable?” but rather “I know this is morally questionable, is there a way for me to avoid responsibility?” Otherwise I am having a bit of difficulty actually untangling your comment.

By putting a burden on people who know something is “morally questionable,” you are discouraging people from taking actions which might reveal such knowledge to them. In the hypothetical you posted, the manager is not in a position to avoid this knowledge.

By your logic, an activist that knows about the conditions inside the plant is also responsible for the safety of the workers, and no action other than successfully protecting the workers will satisfy that responsibility. In this framework, it’s better for an outsider to actively avoid learning about the working conditions because it might impose a duty that’s impossible to fulfill.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#52

Post by cycomanic »

scarmig wrote: post #31
ses1984 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting isn't a moral activity, this is a really, really strange proposition that I am not sure I can accept. Don't morals factor into deciding what goals are beneficial to the population? (I'm not even sure I agree with the proposition that voting pushes the governing apparatus this way in many democracies including the USA)

> (I'm not even sure I agree with the proposition that voting pushes the governing apparatus this way in many democracies including the USA) I agree that it doesn't, but it's the intent. I don't think that's inherent to democracy, though, just the particular "democratic" structures that have evolved that we live with. > Don't morals factor into deciding what goals are beneficial to the population? As individuals, we…

I don't think I can agree with that argument. There is definitely a moral responsibility of the people to hold their governments accountable. I definitely see a responsibility of the German during the 3rd Reich to have a moral responsibility to what happened and the generation which did live during that time were justifiably challenged by their children about what they did or didn't do.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#54

Post by newsbinator »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #48
einpoklum wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when military service is compulsory, there is still _somewhat_ of a choice. In many of these countries you can effectively avoid enlistment - through "undisciplined behavior", playing up health issues, claiming psychological unfitness or even just going "off the grid" for several years.

Thats a bit like arguing that poverty is a choice, as anyone able-bodied could teach themselves valuable skills and get a job. And for some people its true. Maybe Napoleon would always become a leader and a great commander, even if he was born into a tribe of cavemen. There is a lot of draft dodging in Russia, but the army still gets it's steady stream of conscripts. Most of them dont want to be there.

For some reason some of my friends in Russia mentioned they didn't mind being in the army because they liked having 3 square meals a day, getting into good physical shape, getting weapons training, the camaraderie, being sent here and there (without having to pay for travel), etc.

Personally I wouldn't enjoy it, that's for sure.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#55

Post by wongarsu »

ojnabieoot wrote: post #3

> So here is an important moral question: is knowledge of moral risk (in the sense of a risk that I will do something bad, unknowingly) a reason to hold me morally culpable? I would say yes. Let’s make an analogy to physical risk: suppose you are a shift manager who is aware of general and persistent safety issues at a factory (by hearing about mutilations and deaths), even if you don’t know any of the specifics. For…

> Engaging with the question itself is assuming responsibility.

I would argue the exact opposite. Let's stay at the factory analogy: If I'm shift manager and never think about the kinds of accidents that could occur under my supervision and something happens then that's criminal negligence. If I consider the risks, put appropriate safeguards in place, and something still happens them I'm innocent. Accidents happen and I did what I could.

Of course if I recognize the risk and choose to do nothing we are getting into manslaughter territory, much worse than negligence; but assuming I'm actually striving to mitigate risks where possible I'm in a much better position by engaging with them.

The same should be true of moral risks. Simply not thinking about them is no solution.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#57

Post by RashadSaleh »

einpoklum wrote: post #43
austincheney wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of thinking does not apply to the US military. If you have reason to believe an order is illegal, or even should have known, you are just as guilty of the illegal act as the person giving an order. That being said don’t execute an illegal order hoping chain of command will qualify as a valid legal defense.

Also, you swear your oath to defend the _constitution_, against all enemies foreign and _domestic_: https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html this comes _before_ the obligation to obey orders. Meaning that, at least in principle, a soldier is obligated to disobey unconstitutional commands, and in fact, to act to countermand them. Of course that's not what armies are like in practice, but still.

I have mentioned this already folks. Nobody has the authority to break the law - not a general nor the president nor a judge nor a district attorney nor a member of parliament. A law remains the ultimate authority until it is voted out of practice.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#58

Post by RashadSaleh »

lb1lf wrote: post #24
austincheney wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of thinking does not apply to the US military. If you have reason to believe an order is illegal, or even should have known, you are just as guilty of the illegal act as the person giving an order. That being said don’t execute an illegal order hoping chain of command will qualify as a valid legal defense.

-While I have no first-hand knowledge of the US military (or, for that matter, any military - I was conscripted into a branch which didn't take hierarchy too seriously), just about every time the subject of immoral/illegal orders came up, consensus was that the smart (for the individual) thing to do was to acknowledge the order, then do nothing. The reasoning was that refusing an order would get you in serious troubl…

Sounds like a case of corruption. Military systems can be corrupt for the same reason that humans can be corrupt. Unfortunately, nobody found the magic wand yet, so we still have to be responsible for ourselves and make difficult choices. Reform is hard work and a lot of people might not want to make the sacrifice (and understandably so).

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#59

Post by missedthecue »

einpoklum wrote: post #16

> Gadaffi... South Africa... What about the US federal government? Banks and investment firms? The oil companies? Blackwater, Haliburton, Bechtel and the like? Mineral extraction companies? Or perhaps - Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft et al, who spy on you all the time? > There are obvious and important differences between war and management consulting. The first straightforwardly involves killing people, the lat…

What's wrong with haliburton

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#60

Post by JoeAltmaier »

RashadSaleh wrote: post #57
einpoklum wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, you swear your oath to defend the _constitution_, against all enemies foreign and _domestic_: https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html this comes _before_ the obligation to obey orders. Meaning that, at least in principle, a soldier is obligated to disobey unconstitutional commands, and in fact, to act to countermand them. Of course that's not what armies are like in practice, but still.

I have mentioned this already folks. Nobody has the authority to break the law - not a general nor the president nor a judge nor a district attorney nor a member of parliament. A law remains the ultimate authority until it is voted out of practice.

Not having the authority, has little to do with the moral imperative to consider overriding circumstances.

We all have complete authority to make personal choices as we see fit.

Post reply on HN