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

“I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#131

Post by WalterBright »

bumby wrote: post #126
WalterBright wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you have to fight but you can try to prevent it It's prevented if you're stronger than the other guy. I can't think of a single example in history of a country starting a war against a much more powerful opponent that was willing to use that power. Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they thought the US would be unwilling to fight a Pacific war with them. Hitler declared war on the US believing the US woul…

> I can't think of a single example in history of a country starting a war against a much more powerful opponent that was willing to use that power. The Taliban supporting Sept. 11th attacks is an example, although you can argue that it doesn't count because many did not view their government as "legitimate". There's at least some who believe drawing major powers into protracted wars is exactly the point of the offen…

The Taliban misjudged the US, not thinking the US would fight.

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#132

Post by meowface »

asdff wrote: post #121
meowface wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Mercenary" is ambiguous, though. A mercenary is often defined as an entity who does any job for any buyer in the world, if the price is right. A defense contractor generally only engages in deals with certain entities. Mercenaries are more like NSO Group and HackingTeam.

A mercenary is simply a soldier for hire. They can still be choosy who they do business with. I'd say a group like Blackwater is a proper mercenary organization rather than Northrup Grumman, however.

They can be choosy, but I'd say they're definitionally considered less choosy than contractors. You'll probably never see Northrop Grumman building missiles on contract for Assad, but you may very well see NSO Group writing surveillance software for him, for example.

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#133

Post by meowface »

bigbubba wrote: post #130
meowface wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Mercenary" is ambiguous, though. A mercenary is often defined as an entity who does any job for any buyer in the world, if the price is right. A defense contractor generally only engages in deals with certain entities. Mercenaries are more like NSO Group and HackingTeam.

Countries have long had laws about what sort of business mercenaries in or from that country are allowed to accept. That doesn't make mercenaries in or from that country 'not mercenaries.'

I think there are still too many other differences to consider Northrop/Raytheon/Lockheed mercenaries. They're the core of the US military-industrial complex, but I still think they're effectively an arm of the US military and are much closer to contractors than mercenaries.

A company like Blackwater is much closer to actual mercenaries - they're trying to build their own private, independent military-industrial complex, in a sense, by selling their services to existing complexes.

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#134

Post by bumby »

WalterBright wrote: post #131
bumby wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't think of a single example in history of a country starting a war against a much more powerful opponent that was willing to use that power. The Taliban supporting Sept. 11th attacks is an example, although you can argue that it doesn't count because many did not view their government as "legitimate". There's at least some who believe drawing major powers into protracted wars is exactly the point of the offen…

The Taliban misjudged the US, not thinking the US would fight.

I don’t think that’s accurate. Bin Laden’s strategy was to bait the US into protracted wars that would lead to economic stress and eventually cause the US to leave the Islamic world.

https://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#135

Post by bigbubba »

meowface wrote: post #133
bigbubba wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries have long had laws about what sort of business mercenaries in or from that country are allowed to accept. That doesn't make mercenaries in or from that country 'not mercenaries.'

I think there are still too many other differences to consider Northrop/Raytheon/Lockheed mercenaries. They're the core of the US military-industrial complex, but I still think they're effectively an arm of the US military and are much closer to contractors than mercenaries. A company like Blackwater is much closer to actual mercenaries - they're trying to build their own private, independent military-industrial comp…

If your point is that some self-described 'defense contractors' are arms merchants rather than mercenaries, then I agree. 'Defense contractor' is still a euphemism in that case however.

For this matter, Department of Defense is also a euphemism. It used to have the more honest name Department of War until that was changed in the late 1940s.

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#136

Post by bumby »

pjmorris wrote: post #118
mgh2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shifting the moral responsibility from the human/user/corporation to the technology itself seems illogical. Democratization might work, but isn't there a risk for the user to corrupt its intended purpose due to the inherent darkness of human nature? Ex: Initial intents of democratizing knowledge (Google) or social networks (Facebook) both ultimately ended up corroding society with misinformation, fueled by human gree…

> Shifting the moral responsibility from the human/user/corporation to the technology itself seems illogical. Sure, it is people who make decisions, and so they have moral responsibility (at least in my model of the world and in yours.) Consider our examples; whether it's ships and guns leading to the colonization of the US, nuclear weapons leading to the threat of nuclear destruction, or TCPIP, HTTP, HTML, etc leadi…

>To me, it looks like technology is the difference, making its case for neutrality suspect IMO.

I'm not convinced this follows. It's seems like what the OP is saying is that technology has the ability to amplify the morals of those wielding it. That technology is the difference is exactly the point. It's amoral and when owned by the "good guys" (whatever your definition), it amplifies those morals and ethics and vice versa for the "bad guys".

In other words, it's not the technology but the morals of those who own it that is the root of good/evil. Unless your point is that a neutrality requirement is that technology must be incapable of being used for either good or ill, the neutrality claim is valid. (Personally, I prefer the term 'amoral' to neutral but I suspect the OP meant the same thing).

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#137

Post by bumby »

jamestimmins wrote: post #20

Simply as an observation, it’s interesting that serving in the military is usually treated as honorable, but working at a defense contractor is viewed as unethical. I wonder why that is?

As another post stated, there's some baggage associated with the idea of uniformed "service".

There are many people who forego more lucrative careers (in a monetary sense) as a private contractor because of the idea of service. In other words, they feel they are serving a higher purpose in the military and would be selling out to go to a defense contractor. Ironically, these careers in the military are the ones with the largest retention incentives due to this very reason.

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#138

Post by pjmorris »

bumby wrote: post #136
pjmorris wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shifting the moral responsibility from the human/user/corporation to the technology itself seems illogical. Sure, it is people who make decisions, and so they have moral responsibility (at least in my model of the world and in yours.) Consider our examples; whether it's ships and guns leading to the colonization of the US, nuclear weapons leading to the threat of nuclear destruction, or TCPIP, HTTP, HTML, etc leadi…

> To me, it looks like technology is the difference, making its case for neutrality suspect IMO. I'm not convinced this follows. It's seems like what the OP is saying is that technology has the ability to amplify the morals of those wielding it. That technology is the difference is exactly the point. It's amoral and when owned by the "good guys" (whatever your definition), it amplifies those morals and ethics and vic…

> It's amoral and when owned by the "good guys" (whatever your definition), it amplifies those morals and ethics and vice versa for the "bad guys".

I think my main point is that it is the technology-wielding side that prevails, independent of morality. Which means that technology has a moral impact, in reshaping what would otherwise be a fairer fight. Having won, the tech-wielders claim they are the good guys, independent of the actual morality of the situation. "Might makes right." "History is written by the victors."

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#139

Post by bumby »

pjmorris wrote: post #138
bumby wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, it looks like technology is the difference, making its case for neutrality suspect IMO. I'm not convinced this follows. It's seems like what the OP is saying is that technology has the ability to amplify the morals of those wielding it. That technology is the difference is exactly the point. It's amoral and when owned by the "good guys" (whatever your definition), it amplifies those morals and ethics and vic…

> It's amoral and when owned by the "good guys" (whatever your definition), it amplifies those morals and ethics and vice versa for the "bad guys". I think my main point is that it is the technology-wielding side that prevails, independent of morality. Which means that technology has a moral impact, in reshaping what would otherwise be a fairer fight. Having won, the tech-wielders claim they are the good guys, indepe…

Ok, I get what you’re saying now. So you’re saying that technology, by is ability to select the winners of conflict, shapes/influences the nature of society’s moral compass.

That’s an interesting systematic perspective if you can get to the view that morals/ethics are subjective and a response to social standing. Almost sounds as a Nietzche-ian perspective

Re: “I just woke up one morning and it struck me that I was a murderer. so I quit.”

#140

Post by pjmorris »

bumby wrote: post #139
pjmorris wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's amoral and when owned by the "good guys" (whatever your definition), it amplifies those morals and ethics and vice versa for the "bad guys". I think my main point is that it is the technology-wielding side that prevails, independent of morality. Which means that technology has a moral impact, in reshaping what would otherwise be a fairer fight. Having won, the tech-wielders claim they are the good guys, indepe…

Ok, I get what you’re saying now. So you’re saying that technology, by is ability to select the winners of conflict, shapes/influences the nature of society’s moral compass. That’s an interesting systematic perspective if you can get to the view that morals/ethics are subjective and a response to social standing. Almost sounds as a Nietzche-ian perspective

> So you’re saying that technology, by is ability to select the winners of conflict, shapes/influences the nature of society’s moral compass.

Maybe more like we bend the compass to see what we want to see in it.

I'm reminded of a line from the title assassin in 'Grosse Point Blank'... "When I left, I joined the army, and when I took the service exam my psych profile fit a certain... moral flexibility would be the only way to describe it... and I was loaned out to a CIA-sponsored program, and we sort of found each other. That's how it works."

Post reply on HN