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

Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

web.eecs.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 134 posts

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#51

Post by vharuck »

astura wrote: post #22
aratno wrote: post #6

Many of the reasons he stated can also be applied to VC funding: > One thing that makes the slope so slippery is that you have accumulated responsibility for a lab full of graduate students, and the consequences of a major drop in funding will be even more painful for them than it is for you.

Or any funding of any sort from any source, public or private, for that matter. It's a total garbage argument; anyone can require something you disagree with as a condition for continuation of funding, the military is not special in this regard. It's basically akin to saying "don't get a job because if you do then your boss might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with." Ridiculous.

But he knows the military funds research to efficiently kill people, which he doesn't want any part of. So it's more like saying, "don't get a job at a company if you know they might require you to do morally uncomfortable things."

That sounds reasonable.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#53

Post by Zanni »

tommyderami wrote: post #5

While I don't come to the same conclusion, I think this is a great example of presenting a well reasoned argument for a position that is not widely held. I would love to see more debate over topics like this they doesn't resort to name calling, straw man arguments and all or nothing conclusions.

Agreed. I wish more political discourse followed this model. I too disagree with his stance on the military, but I applaud his decision to take an individual stand without hectoring, hyperbole or bad faith arguments. He states his position clearly for others to take or leave as they see fit.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#55

Post by orf »

dwheeler wrote: post #27

This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…

> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries.

This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada?

I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than that. And perhaps you're missing the other side of the coin: "more army = more death". The military industrial complex is very real and this narrative benefits them a whole lot.

There is always a middle ground that doesn't result in the world burning or the USA spending 50% of it's discretionary budget on weapons.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#56

Post by watwut »

wildmusings wrote: post #45
colonelxc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have. Choice quote: """Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""

I think there's something to Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.

Given that the author or me does not have power to force everyone act the same, it is more reasonable to act with assumption that other people do their thing.

So, if there is already more support for military that I find optimal, it makes sense not to support it altrough in different situation I might decide differently.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#57

Post by docbrown »

dwheeler wrote: post #27

This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…

>This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers.

Based on the below passage, I do not believe they are advocating for military abolition at all. Your comment implies they want to rid the US of any and all military force but his argument is against the violence that stems from militarization.

He wants more peaceful solutions while maintaining military security.

>A true defense of our country would require both resources and research into non-violent conflict resolution methods. Both of these exist, but are starved compared with the technologies of warfare.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#58

Post by watwut »

astura wrote: post #50
aratno wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I think it simply says that people with stringent ethics cannot serve others and cede control. They may bootstrap their own businesses, become their own bosses, or find another way to operate independently. For some, control is relinquished to VCs. For others, it is the funders of their research, or their bosses. Most people are not as picky about their ethics as they are about their di…

By his logic you shouldn't do that either just replace "your boss" with "your customers." "don't start a business because if you do then your customers might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with." Except his argument is even sillier, because he's actually arguing that "might eventually" is actually "inevitably." That it's just inevitable that DARPA funded cancer research naturally…

You can refuse customer. You can not breach already written contract.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#59

Post by [deleted] »

watwut wrote: post #56
wildmusings wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's something to Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.

Given that the author or me does not have power to force everyone act the same, it is more reasonable to act with assumption that other people do their thing. So, if there is already more support for military that I find optimal, it makes sense not to support it altrough in different situation I might decide differently.

[deleted]

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#60

Post by astura »

watwut wrote: post #58
astura wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By his logic you shouldn't do that either just replace "your boss" with "your customers." "don't start a business because if you do then your customers might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with." Except his argument is even sillier, because he's actually arguing that "might eventually" is actually "inevitably." That it's just inevitable that DARPA funded cancer research naturally…

You can refuse customer. You can not breach already written contract.

If nobody's buying what you're selling, then you have no business.
Post reply on HN