| |
| ▲ | jsrozner 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If morality never factors into your own decisions, you don't get to be upset when it doesn't factor into other peoples'. In other words, society just sucks when everyone thinks this way, even if it true that resolving it is hard. | | |
| ▲ | nativeit 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is called a “replacement excuse”. It’s a hallmark of nihilists and utilitarians, but I tend to prefer the more prosaic group noun, “jerks”. | |
| ▲ | torstenvl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is an intellectually and morally deficient position to take. There is no moral principle in any system anywhere in the history of the universe that requires me to bind myself to a contract that nobody else is bound to. We can all agree, as a society, "hey, no individual person will graze more than ten cows on the commons," and that's fine. And if we all agree and someone breaks their vow, then that is immoral. "Society just sucks when everyone thinks this way" indeed. But if nobody ever agreed to it, and you're out there grazing all you're cattle, and Ezekiel is out there grazing all his cattle, and Josiah is out there grazing all his cattle, there is no reasonable ethical principle you could propose that would prevent me from grazing all my cattle too. | | |
| ▲ | ReluctantLaser 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > There is no moral principle in any system anywhere in the history of the universe that requires me to bind myself to a contract that nobody else is bound to. Is there not? I don't feel this makes sense to me, as the conclusion seems to be "if everyone (or perhaps a large amount of people) do it, then it's not immoral". My immediate thought goes to moral systems that universalise an action, such that if everyone did it and it makes the world worse, then it's something that you should not do. That would be an example of a system that goes counter to what you say. Since morals are personal, you can still have that conclusion even if other people do not subscribe to the same set of moral beliefs that you have. Something can be immoral to you, and you will refuse to do it even if everyone else does. > But if nobody ever agreed to it [...] there is no reasonable ethical principle you could propose that would prevent me from grazing all my cattle too. Why not? I don't quite understand your conclusion. Why could the conclusion not be "I feel what everyone else is doing is wrong, and I will not do it myself"? Is it because it puts you at a disadvantage, and you believe that is unfair? Perhaps this is the "reasonable" aspect? | | |
| ▲ | torstenvl 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Your confusion is understandable. The way the terms "moral" and "ethical" are thrown around is sloppy in most vernacular. Generally, ethics refers to system-wide morality. E.g., I may feel that personal morality compels me to offer lower rates to clients, even though a higher rate may be acceptable under legal ethics. I tried to make that distinction clear in my post ("moral principle in any system") but perhaps I didn't do a good enough job. The original poster was not referring to individual moral feelings, but to formal ethical systems subject to systematized logical thinking: "classic example of an ethically unsound argument." There is no religious tradition, no system of ethics, no school of thought in moral philosophy, that is consistent with that position. The closest you might come is Aristotelian virtue ethics. But it would be a really strained reading that would result in the position that opting out of commons mismanagement is required. Aristotle specifically said that being a fool is not a virtue. If anything, a virtue ethics lens would compel someone to try to establish formal community rules to prevent the tragedy of the commons. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | godelski 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is definitely ethically unsound and it is definitely a common example even related to Nazis. Similar to "just following orders". Which I'll remind everyone, will not save you in a court of law[0]... You are abdicating your own moral responsibility on the assumption of a deterministic reality. The literal textbook version of this ethical issue, one you'll find in literally any intro to ethics class is If I don't do this job then somebody else will. The only difference is that I will not get paid and if I get paid I will do good with that money where as if somebody else gets paid they might not.
Sometimes a variant will be introduced with a direct acknowledgement of like donating 10% of your earnings to charity to "offset" your misgivings (ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ ᴱᶠᶠᵉᶜᵗᶦᵛᵉ ᴬˡᵗʳᵘᶦˢᵐ ᶜᵒᵘᵍʰ).But either way, it is you abdicating your personal responsibility and making the assumption that the job will be done regardless. But think about the logic here. If people do not think like you then the employer must then start offering higher wages in order to entice others. As there is some function describing people's individual moral lines and their desire for money. Even if the employer must pay more you are then helping deter that behavior because you are making it harder to implement. Alternatively the other person that does the job might not be as good at the job as you, making the damage done less than had you done the job. It's not hard to see that often this will result in the job not even existing as truthfully these immoral jobs are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Even if you are making the assumption that the job will be done it would be more naive to assume the job is done to the same quality. (But kudos on you for the lack of ego and thinking you aren't better than other devs) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders | | |
| ▲ | 20after4 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most of those convicted at the Nuremberg trials eventually had their sentences commuted and only served a fraction of their time. Only a few were convicted and executed. Justice rarely prevails. | | | |
| ▲ | torstenvl 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Objectively incorrect. There is no reasonable argument that it's ethically unsound. The fact that you immediately Godwin'd should have been your first clue. | |
| ▲ | bannana2033 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > will not save you in a court of law Not in the USA. LEO or ICE - or even some judges misuse and never are punished. Qualified immunity. Moral is different story. Too many people in HN work in Google or Apple. That by itself if immoral. | | |
| ▲ | godelski 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > even some
Some is a keyword.Some doesn't change the law. You're right to push back in case I intended something different. But I'll state this clearly: those LEO, ICE agents, and judges are committing crimes. But the fact that not all criminals are punished or prosecuted does not change the laws either. What I'm concerned about is people becoming disenfranchised and apathetic. Dismissing the laws we have that does punish LEO, ICE agents, and judges for breaking the laws. To take a defeatist attitude. Especially in this more difficult time where that power is being abused more than ever. But a big reason it is being able to be abused is because a growing apathetic attitude by people. By people giving up. So I don't know about you and your positions. I don't know if you're apathetic or invested. All I know is a random comment from a random person. It isn't much to go on. But I hope you aren't and I hope you don't spread apathy, intentionally or not. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | avsteele 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you want a consequentialist answer: If, for ethical reasons, fewer people were willing to take these jobs, then either salaries would have to rise or the work would be done less effectively. If salaries rise, the business becomes more expensive and harder to scale.
If effectiveness drops, the systems are less capable of extracting/using people’s data. Either way, refusing these jobs imposes real friction on the surveillance model. If you want a deontological answer: You have a responsibility not to participate in unethical behavior, even if someone else would. | |
| ▲ | Sharlin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The fact that it can be used to "justify" almost anything. It obviously doesn't work as a defense in the court, and neither does it work as a justification for doing legal but unethical things. |
|
