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

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#81

Post by ses1984 »

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…

What if a candidate runs on a monstrous platform and then implements exactly what they promised, is it ok to put any blame on those voters?

I don't think in cases where voters are deceived it would be fair to blame them.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#82

Post by RashadSaleh »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #69
RashadSaleh wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you call the moral imperative wasn't voted on, doesn't have a police to enforce it, doesn't have a judge to interpret it, doesn't have a media to debate it, and you just might happen to change your mind about it a couple of years into the future. Even if you say that your strategy is to make people (including yourself) feel guilty about breaking this imperative, and amplify this feeling as much as possible so as…

That's why its called 'morals'. The compass inside us, we use to decide what's right and wrong. Its the reason anybody does anything - including follow the law when it seems like the right thing to do. That 2nd part - where did that fantasy come from? Not sure how to respond.

All disputes in a civil society must be resolved peacefully through elections and courts of law. Nobody can be above the law, for whatever reason. What you call morals is something that nobody voted on, nobody debated, no judge interpreted it, no police to enforce it.

Why should I be bound by your values but you can't be bound by my values? You are free to use your moral compass (and should) when voting, when debating, when campaigning, when serving, etc. But once a final vote has happened, the law is supreme and even those who voted it into practice cannot change their mind and decide to violate it, until the next vote happens.

Just imagine what it would be like to establish the "morality police". The first problem that arises is what should be considered moral and therefore needs to be enforced, and what should not be considered moral and therefore not enforced. And how do you decide that? Through voting, debate, a free press, separation of powers, etc.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#83

Post by RashadSaleh »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #30
RashadSaleh wrote: post #10

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_hierarchy "strict accountability – those who issue orders are responsible for the consequences, not those who carry them out" If you are a subordinate and you disagreed with a certain order, either because you think the order is stupid or morally wrong, you can (and should) still carry out the order to the best of your ability. If the emotional distress caused by a contradi…

The infamous "I was just following order" defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders > This is why not every civilian can be a military person. This is why not every civilian wants to be a military person.

The highest ranking officer in a democracy is the president -- an elected civilian.

This was not the case in nazi germany, and the military was forced to follow orders, regardless of their consent. This means that if you had the choice and the ability to disobey but didn't, then, by definition, you were a culprit.

Politics is greater than the military. War is defined as the act of imposing your political will over your enemy through organized violence. The "organized" part is the part that you have a problem with, but that is fine because you can be a civilian or even a critic of the military. However, I can't see how a person, who, out of a superior moral capacity, able to cooperate without the understanding while still keep and protect their values -- I can't see how such a person is blind or looking for excuses for exemption of responsibility. Not everyone can have that capacity and it is most likely a result of upbringing and I don't know if there is a military in the world that can generate that in a person.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#84

Post by RashadSaleh »

Lukas_Skywalker wrote: post #36
RashadSaleh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All human beings are equal. There is no supreme arbiter of human argument. When you need to organize with fellow human beings, you then need to give people the benefit of a doubt after achieving certain qualifications to give orders according to their own arguments and views. On the other hand, when you achieve those qualifications, others will have to give you the benefit of a doubt to give orders according to your…

So you‘re saying every order ever given by any leader should have been followed, just because they were more „qualified“ than the people following. I disagree. What if a leader got his qualifications but has since gone slightly insane? Qualification alone isn‘t reason enough to blindly follow orders.

In a democracy, and if the orders don't break any laws, then yes you follow the orders, and you are not considered responsible for the outcomes. If you can't do it, you resign or ask for someone else to do it. If you are still not satisfied you can go to a protest, go to the media and express your views, and exercise your vote in the next elections.

The problem of the leader that goes insane is solved with checks and balances.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#85

Post by kd5bjo »

ojnabieoot wrote: post #62
kd5bjo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 successfull…

This is a tortured misreading of what I’m saying - and regardless is addressed by my argument. > you are discouraging people from taking actions which might reveal such knowledge to them If you are deliberately and knowingly avoiding that knowledge to escape culpability then that’s morally equivalent to having the knowledge but failing to act. A police sergeant who says “get a confession, and if you rough him up don’…

If I understand you correctly, moral culpability arises independently of your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the actual situation. Instead, it comes from your ability to effect change; even if unforseen (or unforseeable?), you are responsible for the difference between the actual outcome and the best outcome that could have been had you acted differently.

What I don’t understand is how awareness of potential responsibility or the act of grappling with moral questions factors into this model.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#86

Post by JoeAltmaier »

RashadSaleh wrote: post #82
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why its called 'morals'. The compass inside us, we use to decide what's right and wrong. Its the reason anybody does anything - including follow the law when it seems like the right thing to do. That 2nd part - where did that fantasy come from? Not sure how to respond.

All disputes in a civil society must be resolved peacefully through elections and courts of law. Nobody can be above the law, for whatever reason. What you call morals is something that nobody voted on, nobody debated, no judge interpreted it, no police to enforce it. Why should I be bound by your values but you can't be bound by my values? You are free to use your moral compass (and should) when voting, when debatin…

Because, I'm already only 'bound' by my own values. As is every thinking person.

This is silly. Reiterating the same point (laws are important) isn't getting anywhere.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#87

Post by JoeAltmaier »

RashadSaleh wrote: post #64
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And your neighbour thinks the same. And by the way they have a gun. In a civil society disagreements are solved peacefully through voting and clear structures of accountability so you don't need to guess if you are responsible or not. Even the same person disagrees with themselves over time. People who vote this way this election, vote the other way the next one. You devise me a system where people are above the law…

All that strife, today, is prevented by morals and not laws. When it works anyway.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#88

Post by einpoklum »

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.

Fair enough. I did say "somewhat" of a choice. In some countries (not sure about Russia), almost half the population manages to dodge the draft one way or another.

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#89

Post by RashadSaleh »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #86
RashadSaleh wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All disputes in a civil society must be resolved peacefully through elections and courts of law. Nobody can be above the law, for whatever reason. What you call morals is something that nobody voted on, nobody debated, no judge interpreted it, no police to enforce it. Why should I be bound by your values but you can't be bound by my values? You are free to use your moral compass (and should) when voting, when debatin…

Because, I'm already only 'bound' by my own values. As is every thinking person. This is silly. Reiterating the same point (laws are important) isn't getting anywhere.

It is right that democracy cannot cast moral judgement on people who reject it. In this sense it is like a mathematical postulate -- you either accept it or reject it, and if you reject it then your proofs cannot be judged by that postulate.

But the people who value democracy can cast moral judgement, because while they are working to make the world a better place by sharpening points of view and rooting for the best one to win, you are just exploiting the system reaping all the rewards while not contributing anything.

Why the shortcut though, why not make your value a longer-lasting law?

Re: Deciding to do morally risky work (2019)

#90

Post by RashadSaleh »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #87
RashadSaleh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your neighbour thinks the same. And by the way they have a gun. In a civil society disagreements are solved peacefully through voting and clear structures of accountability so you don't need to guess if you are responsible or not. Even the same person disagrees with themselves over time. People who vote this way this election, vote the other way the next one. You devise me a system where people are above the law…

All that strife, today, is prevented by morals and not laws. When it works anyway.

And the best one of those morals is the conviction to follow the law impartially.
Post reply on HN