51–60 of 88 posts
Why defence is unethical? I wish you arent forced to reevaluate your opinion by war like the one on Ukraine right now. If I were your enemy, then I'd really try hard to push such narrative.
It's not inherently unethical, that would be a very extreme, purely deontological rather than consequential/utilitarian, position to take.
I try to balance and minimize harm. I suggest that your best bet is incremental change. Totally reskilling isn't realistic, but taking a series of jobs that move you closer to skill sets you want is. Similarly, if there are types of work you would find inspiring, can you figure out what those companies are looking for, and move towards roles that would help you become that? Working for a slightly more ethical company…
Why defence is unethical? I wish you arent forced to reevaluate your opinion by war like the one on Ukraine right now. If I were your enemy, then I'd really try hard to push such narrative.
Because you are building stuff to kill people. Even the doublespeak of naming it defence is atrocious. It might be justifiable in some cases like the current weapon shipments to Ukraine, but not if they are used in something like the Iraqi war. And you definitely wont be the one who decides where the weapon you helped to make is used.
Plus, when it gets to the actual intervention, tech minimises casualties, making the war shorter and enabling more precise strikes. The US did not need to indiscriminately shell cities like Russia does in its current war.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you are building stuff to kill people. Even the doublespeak of naming it defence is atrocious. It might be justifiable in some cases like the current weapon shipments to Ukraine, but not if they are used in something like the Iraqi war. And you definitely wont be the one who decides where the weapon you helped to make is used.
Yes, you are building stuff to kill people who are killing you (and democratic Western world in general). Quite ethical, if you ask me. And most weapons in the world are not used to kill people — they are used to deter people from killing people. And, if you choose to not work for autocratic countries, you have a choice in saying who will use the weapons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you are building stuff to kill people who are killing you (and democratic Western world in general). Quite ethical, if you ask me. And most weapons in the world are not used to kill people — they are used to deter people from killing people. And, if you choose to not work for autocratic countries, you have a choice in saying who will use the weapons.
It's funny how democratic Western world gives themselves the ethical right to kill others while fighting for “truth” and turning a blind eye to their own war crimes, which is ultimately a reflection of the rhetoric of their opponents. This impeccable confidence in the rightness is simply amazing.
I can 100% assure you that it's not like that in Russia, and that's the difference between modern west and other superpowers, past and present.
You will always have problems with others not sharing your ethical values. Best you can do is strive to do better and not actively deal with those that deal in harm (according to your value set). The main problem is that EVERYONE including yourself has positive qualities along with some ethical lapses to say the least. You mentioned C#, you are aware that there are people in this world who consider Microsoft more evi…
I think your picture of the world is too negative. Defence is a necessary evil, because otherwise you will be governed by thugs. Financial services enable people without capital to build things. While there are surely material things that you consider vain, consumption is a good thing that improves people's lives.
[flagged]
Reminder: This is my personal opinion, not an attempt to convince you of anything else. While my opinion might be unpopular, I don't believe it to be without any contributing value to the discussion, so please keep that in mind if you decide to read it (and before downvoting me for providing my opinion). I don't really, if I'm not doing it, someone else will do it, so it will be done anyway. My belief is in bettering…
If you can only choose between these, I agree.
But being an engineer who contributes to industry, you can better the world through massively adopted technology.
If you are a road worker and you fix a hole in the road, it might contribute to thousands of cases of vehicles needing repair later.
If you work on battery systems, auto-pilot, or logistics, you can reduce consumption on a massive scale.
Reminder: This is my personal opinion, not an attempt to convince you of anything else. While my opinion might be unpopular, I don't believe it to be without any contributing value to the discussion, so please keep that in mind if you decide to read it (and before downvoting me for providing my opinion). I don't really, if I'm not doing it, someone else will do it, so it will be done anyway. My belief is in bettering…
That is flawed logic though. If enough people refuse to do certain types of work, it will make it harder/more expensive to do that work, which could mean it doesn't get done at all. Simple supply and demand!
Principles matter both in theory and in practice. Just because someone else is OK with doing bad stuff doesn't mean it's OK for you to be.