Engineering Ethics: Struggles with Personal Ethics

[aquitaine]

I have to dispute that point, aquitaine. I agree with the U.S. having prosecuted that war but it wasn't about the survival of this nation. The U.S. was not threatened by Nazi Germany and if we'd maintained friendly relations with the Empire of Japan Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened.

Point conceeded, but it was still just because they attacked us first.

 

[Cyrus]

But you all are avoiding the real question. Is it moral to sit back and do nothing when you're attacked and at war, than it is to create weapons used in that war. The answer to the first is clearly NO. It is not a moral high ground, its moral cowardice. Fighting for what's right is moral. Helping in that fight by developing weapons is similarly moral.

Were this the 1300's where the weapons would be used to exterminate entire civilizations for their gold, then it would be a problem. But those are not the times we live in.

 

[Shackleford]

You can have two very drastic views on this issue.

The first would be that you deplore weapons and you do not wish to take any part in taking away another life.

Or secondly, you can conclude that these weapons will be made regardless if you do it or some else does it, so you could at least try to make the more accurate so less civilians deaths occur and/or less of your countries troops die.

I don't know anyone in defense that builds weapons for the love of making weapons. Although, there may be ones. I think for the most part, the people that do it, feel there is a need to build these things, and it's their job to make work as efficiently as possible, but also as safe.

If you don't have this desire, then don't resort to defense. You CAN find other jobs.

Side note, Shackle, it ISN'T ridiculous to be against weapons. I think all of us, to some degree or another wish there wasn't a need and if given the choice between having them or living in peace, I would hope all of us would pick the latter. It may be a something a nation needs, but the ethics question comes in, when is to much? Take a look at the cold war, when did too many nukes happen? Once you make enough bombs to destroy the world, You obviously went to far.

It is ridiculous because people need to stop living in fantasy land. Being against weapons is being against something that is absolutely necessary. Weapons are a tool to insure peace and safety of citizens. There will always be a bad guy out there. Being against weapons in general is absolutely ridiculous. Being for the weapons to be in the right hands and being used for the right reasons is not ridiculous.

 

[rootX]

There will always be a bad guy out there.

ahhh ... who's this bad guy?
-Galileo in 1600s,
-Jesus in Roman Empire,
-Freedom fighters ...
-World Governments
-Terrorists
-European witches (my history knowledge is not good, so I might have put something wrong here)

So isn't it also ridiculous to say "those are bad guys! threaten or kill them!".

I guess these are relative concepts (depend upon time and the society you live in).

But in reality, there's nothing right or wrong. If we were really really nice guys from the very beginning, we would have never reached here to this point (prolly would have got killed by some other species). I know if, say, US stops making weapons there would be some next idiot nation who would take the US position.

 

[Shackleford]

ahhh ... who's this bad guy?
-Galileo in 1600s,
-Jesus in Roman Empire,
-Freedom fighters ...
-World Governments
-Terrorists
-European witches (my history knowledge is not good, so I might have put something wrong here)

So isn't it also ridiculous to say "those are bad guys! threaten or kill them!".

I guess these are relative concepts (depend upon time and the society you live in).

But in reality, there's nothing right or wrong. If we were really really nice guys from the very beginning, we would have never reached here to this point (prolly would have got killed by some other species). I know if, say, US stops making weapons there would be some next idiot nation who would take the US position.

Don't be an idiot. If you can't accurately determine who the "bad guys" are...

 

[Cyrus]

So isn't it also ridiculous to say "those are bad guys! threaten or kill them!".

No its not. We have rules and laws that define what bad guys are and when you can kill them.

I guess these are relative concepts (depend upon time and the society you live in).

They are not realtive. See above.

But in reality, there's nothing right or wrong.

Yes, there are right and wrong choices in life.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

But you all are avoiding the real question. Is it moral to sit back and do nothing when you're attacked and at war, than it is to create weapons used in that war. The answer to the first is clearly NO. It is not a moral high ground, its moral cowardice. Fighting for what's right is moral. Helping in that fight by developing weapons is similarly moral.

I did not avoid the question. I said that weapons you might develop will much more probably be used for some politician's military adventurism rather than fighting for what's right.

Or, to be perfectly truthful, unless it's something really, really expensive or really sensitive like our antimissile system, it will probably be sold to some other nation and be used more frequently than not to kill people with whom the United States is not at war at all.

If you really want to be certain to destroy the actual enemies of your country the most efficient thing is to just plot to destroy the world. That gives you much better return than developing weapons and rolling the dice on long odds that they'll actually be used to fight a just war against real enemies.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

Can you name US military adventurism?

 

[rootX]

"We have rules and laws"

but that's again a relative thing? ><

who are we (westerns, arabic (who have some weird laws!), humans, criminals(who would abuse even children ><), normal people .. )
and what time you are choosing 2000, 1600, 1800,...
I am sure there were pretty crazy laws in 1600 or 1800s

 

[Cyrus]

No, its not a relative thing. You have not made an argument.


Side- Please stop making annoying faces and talking like you're 12. (i.e., no more of this "><")

 

[rootX]

Thanks.
I guess I need to study(think) more about this subject.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Can you name US military adventurism?

I already did if you read my previous post. The one I mentioned, the Vietnam War and the subsequent secret war in Cambodia and Laos are probably the best example. Panama's another good one. And of course the recent Iraq war was pursued under false pretenses, Downing Street Memo and all.

Basically, if we spend decades sending money and weapons somewhere, then later on decide they're super-duper evil and invade as the champions of freedom, you can pretty much bet it's eventually going to turn out that there was something fishy with the reason we invaded. (Though something slightly different happened in the case of Vietnam et al. though the Gulf of Tonkin incident was manufactured)

That's Donald Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. We helped Iraq out with their war with Iran and with other support for Saddam Hussein's regime. A few years after the above picture was taken we also sold weapons to the other side in that conflict, the fundamentalist Islamic regime of Iran during the Iran-Contra affair, in violation of U.S. Arms export laws, and gave the money to a group of violent drug-dealing rebels in Nicaragua.

(This stuff isn't conspiracy theories, it's part of history and you can easily research it. There were convictions and jail time in the Iran-Contra affair.)

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

Its a far stretch to say that the current war in Iraq was military adventurism. Sure it did not go well, and no WMDs were found; however, the less moral thing in this case would have been to allow Sadam to continue killing his own people.

PS. I am from Iran. I know plenty about it.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Ah, no wonder you have the name of a Persian emperor.

We sold Saddam some of the weapons he used to kill his own people (like http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm" ), which in the recent war we invaded Iraq and killed a bunch more Iraqis to take vengance for or whatever. Surely the line for whether people in the U.S. developing those weapons was at least a little bit blurry, whether or not at some point those weapons might have been used to fight for what's right. Especially since we also sold Iran weapons to kill Iraqis with.

⚛​

 

[Shackleford]

Its a far stretch to say that the current war in Iraq was military adventurism. Sure it did not go well, and no WMDs were found; however, the less moral thing in this case would have been to allow Sadam to continue killing his own people.

PS. I am from Iran. I know plenty about it.

So, did the US not find any because they were relocated?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

One other thing I'll point out: if there had been WMDs in Iraq and Iraq had really engaged in some sort of military attacks against the U.S., the weapons designers who worked on the weapons and anthrax and things that were sold to Iraq might've actually ended up having a hand in creating weapons that were used against Americans.

I'm just pointing out that it isn't quite so morally unambiguous that if you work on weapons, you'll be helping to fight for what's right. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to work in that field but it's definitely not the sort of thing that one person should be deciding for another.

⚛​

 

[DominicConnor]

Efficiency

Let us take this as a problem in utility maximisation.

In terms of economics, our friend has an amount of time, ability to earn money and skills.
He can rearrange this set (buying skills with money & time, using money to get things done quicker, selling his time for money).
Being as a I'm a financial markets headhunter, I will use simplistic option theory as well.

If he chooses to take a job outside the ones that pay the best for his skills and time, he will get less money.
He believes that choosing a job in defence will cause some raising of the level of "bad" in the world.
But are the two terms equal ?
That is extremely improbable of course, but which is bigger ?

Is the loss he is suffering an efficient way of making the world a better place ?

Modern financial theory says that "choice" has value, hence the serious money in derivatives that let you choose whether to buy something.

So efficiency:
If he chooses to take a job, he is giving up the ability to quit it.
(Read that sentence twice :)

It is possible that his work may happen to be in something like air safety which he doesn't see as bad. By losing that possible option for nothing, he is being inefficient. He should at least look at the jobs he gets offered.
If the best paying job he gets offered is in defence, then to give it up costs money.
The question I would ask is whether he could spend the money to make the world a better place efficiently ?
For instance, he could arrange to donate 5% of his pay to providing clean water, researching disease, or even to the political campaign of a candidate that he perceives will make things better, or even to the candidate who will stop the one who makes things worse.
Short version can you do more good with the money than your job does harm ?

I don't know which side of the inequality I have described is bigger, and since it is based upon personal preferences, I cannot even try.

What I can urge you to do is use the advanced analytical methods you have learned to reason about your life. You should at least increase the chances of getting more of what you want.

 

[Cyrus]

So, did the US not find any because they were relocated?

How should I know?

 

[Cyrus]

Ah, no wonder you have the name of a Persian emperor.

We sold Saddam some of the weapons he used to kill his own people (like http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm" ), which in the recent war we invaded Iraq and killed a bunch more Iraqis to take vengance for or whatever. Surely the line for whether people in the U.S. developing those weapons was at least a little bit blurry, whether or not at some point those weapons might have been used to fight for what's right. Especially since we also sold Iran weapons to kill Iraqis with.

⚛​

Most of Iraqs military weaponry comes from the soviet union. At the time, supplying Sadam with weapons was the lesser of two evils (Supporting Iran or Iraq). Obviously, it was poor foreign policy by the US.

 

[Cyrus]

One other thing I'll point out: if there had been WMDs in Iraq and Iraq had really engaged in some sort of military attacks against the U.S., the weapons designers who worked on the weapons and anthrax and things that were sold to Iraq might've actually ended up having a hand in creating weapons that were used against Americans.

I'm just pointing out that it isn't quite so morally unambiguous that if you work on weapons, you'll be helping to fight for what's right. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to work in that field but it's definitely not the sort of thing that one person should be deciding for another.

⚛​

Probably not. I don't think Anthrax has a shelf life of 30 years.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Most of Iraqs military weaponry comes from the soviet union. At the time, supplying Sadam with weapons was the lesser of two evils (Supporting Iran or Iraq). Obviously, it was poor foreign policy by the US.

That's the sort of thing I'm saying - the weapon designer has no control over whether poor foreign policy or greed or military adventurism is what puts his weapons into use instead of fighting for what's right.

The U.S. aid to Iraq wasn't exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war" . (Well-cited Wikipedia article.) I wouldn't be surprised if some of those Soviet weapons were bought with U.S. cash.

And as I pointed out, we didn't just support Iraq, we sold arms to both sides.

Even if the U.S. foreign policy was really being noble-minded and supporting the lesser of two evils, it wasn't very consistent for us to refuse to support the http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/w...682fbc3536b01&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" that occurred in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. If you look at that link many of the things that Saddam Hussein was tried for occurred during the time in the 80's when we were giving him money and weapons.

Probably not. I don't think Anthrax has a shelf life of 30 years.

I don't think it does, either - they would have to culture it the same way we do. I don't have a cite on hand but I remember reading that genetic testing was done on some of the anthrax and other infectious agents found in Iraqi labs during the recent war and they were found to be the same strains provided by the U.S. in the 1980's.

And besides that, if you followed my above link you'd see that we sold him components for various chemical weapons too.

Anyways, are you still trying to say this is an unambiguous issue that people don't need to think about?

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

I certainly agree with all your points; however, the issue lies not with the weapons, but the policy behind them. Its similar to gun control. Taking away guns won't resolve crime. Similarly, not designing weapons won't stop wars. The remedy is to have a watchful eye on foreign policy by our government.

I can design a car, but that won't stop someone from getting drunk behind the wheel and killing people. You can't take responsiblity out of the equation.

And in fact, the shift is now towards smart weapons. So, would you rather there not be research into weapons that kill individuals, or the conventional 'dumb bombs', etc, that kill anyone and everyone?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I can design a car, but that won't stop someone from getting drunk behind the wheel and killing people. You can't take responsiblity out of the equation.

The difference is that whereas most weapons are designed to kill people, cars are not.

And in fact, the shift is now towards smart weapons. So, would you rather there not be research into weapons that kill individuals, or the conventional 'dumb bombs', etc, that kill anyone and everyone?

As I pointed out to the OP, doing lethality analysis might actually reduce casualties. I also think I mentioned that he could work on non-lethal weapons.

Like I said, I'm just pointing out that this isn't an issue that's morally unambiguous and all about fighting for what's right.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

But that's not a valid point. Weapons are designed to kill enemies that intend to do you harm, not to kill innocent people. Simply saying 'weapons are designed to kill', is a scapegoat.

I still don't see the ambiguity of working on weapons based on your argument. The problem lies not with the weapon maker, but US foreign policy.

Weapons are designed to kill people, naturally I want a weapon that is really good at killing people the first time it is used, and who it is intended to kill. I don't want a weapon that fails to do its job when our life depends on it, and blows up half the elementary school next door in the process.

You need to phrase your statements properly. Lethality analysis is not to 'reduce casualties'. Its to increase the casualties of the enemy while decresing innocent deaths. That is moral. Not to do so, is immoral.

Ill provide you with another example, high energy lasers. They are working on an airborn laser platform on 747s to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles. Now, would you say that its more moral to not work on such a system, and let atomic bombs land on US and its allies soil?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Weapons are designed to kill enemies that intend to do you harm, not to kill innocent people. Simply saying 'weapons are designed to kill', is a scapegoat.

Yeah. Duh. I know that they're designed with the best intentions, but as the saying goes, that's what the road to hell is paved with. What I've demonstrated here is that regardless of the intentions of the weapon designer the weapons he or she designs will probably end up being used to kill people who are not enemies of the state.

The argument you're making is like intentionally leaving a gun you own on a table in a kindergarten or at the house of someone you know to be a violent criminal or to be unbalanced, and then when someone picks up that gun and shoots another person saying, “It's not my fault, I didn't pull the trigger!”

If you intentionally or through intentional negligence put a weapon in the hands of someone who you don't think is responsible enough to use it properly you are morally culpable. No one is morally obligated to trust that the government is going to always act with maturity or good judgment or honesty and it's perfectly honorable to take account of the fact that the government might not be in one's moral reasoning.

You need to phrase your statements properly. Lethality analysis is not to 'reduce casualties'. Its to increase the casualties of the enemy while decresing innocent deaths.

D'ya think you could be any more patronizing? I didn't say that the purpose of lethality analysis is to reduce casualties. I said that by doing that sort of work the OP might be able to reduce the number of casualties from existing weapons, i.e. the innocent deaths you're talking about.

If you're seriously saying that you can decide for other people whether or not it would be moral for them to work in weapons design, that's pretty arrogant and immature. And dishonorable, come to think of it.

And I must say it's pretty troll-like of you to keep ignoring my statement that I think someone can morally decide to work in weapons design. You're using words like “scapegoat” as if I'm trying to blame something on weapons designers. I'm not, for the tenth time, I'm simply saying that it's a difficult decision each person must make for themselves.

⚛​

 

[PowerIso]

It is ridiculous because people need to stop living in fantasy land. Being against weapons is being against something that is absolutely necessary. Weapons are a tool to insure peace and safety of citizens. There will always be a bad guy out there. Being against weapons in general is absolutely ridiculous. Being for the weapons to be in the right hands and being used for the right reasons is not ridiculous.

I feel you missed the entirety of my post. I consider it a necessary evil. No one likes pollution and if given the choice between pollution and no pollution, most people would pick the former. Likewise, given the choice between needing weapons and or not needing weapons, I feel most people would pick not needing them.

Noticed, I used the word need. I feel there is an unfortunate need for weapons in today's society. I'm against weapons, but I understand that it is a necessary evil.

The problem occurs when you talk about reasons. Some people feel the Iraq war is a justified war and we have ever right to be there. Other feel that if you really wanted to hunt down the terrorist, wouldn't it have been better to simply stuck in afghan and actually finish the job there (which seems to be the saying for Iraq now)?

When you feel you can decide what is all ways right and who the right hands all ways are, and be 100% correct all the time, then yes, it would be utterly ridiculous to criticize weapons, but until then, I implore you to respect someone's else opinion on this issue.

Anyway to get kind of back on track.

If you feel there is an ethical problem, no one can tell you if there is really one or not.

For me personally, I grew up in a country in war, and I could never design something to harm anyone after that experience. It's the person I am. If you feel any remorse or have any grievances with the idea your design could do terrible things to people, then yes there is an ethical problem you have to address, and you personally have to decide if the good out weights the bad.

 

[PowerIso]

Can you name US military adventurism?

Afghan is mostly citied. Perhaps every "intervention" in central and south America.

 

[Cyrus]

In what way is Afghanistan military adventurism?

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah. Duh. I know that they're designed with the best intentions, but as the saying goes, that's what the road to hell is paved with. What I've demonstrated here is that regardless of the intentions of the weapon designer the weapons he or she designs will probably end up being used to kill people who are not enemies of the state.

Try not to be so cliche!

The argument you're making is like intentionally leaving a gun you own on a table in a kindergarten or at the house of someone you know to be a violent criminal or to be unbalanced, and then when someone picks up that gun and shoots another person saying, “It's not my fault, I didn't pull the trigger!”

No, that is rediculous. Its a terrible analogy, I am not going to touch it. Ill leave that loaded gun for someone else to deal with (See, I can be cliche too ).

If you intentionally or through intentional negligence put a weapon in the hands of someone who you don't think is responsible enough to use it properly you are morally culpable. No one is morally obligated to trust that the government is going to always act with maturity or good judgment or honesty and it's perfectly honorable to take account of the fact that the government might not be in one's moral reasoning.

Thats exactly right. And that's why its the responsibilty of you and me as citizens to make sure we don't put people in office that does this. Now, what does that have to do with designing weapons I ask?

D'ya think you could be any more patronizing? I didn't say that the purpose of lethality analysis is to reduce casualties. I said that by doing that sort of work the OP might be able to reduce the number of casualties from existing weapons, i.e. the innocent deaths you're talking about.

Sure, I just want to make the distinction clear. Its a very important one to make.

If you're seriously saying that you can decide for other people whether or not it would be moral for them to work in weapons design, that's pretty arrogant and immature. And dishonorable, come to think of it.

I sure can, and I sure did. Its just as moral as doing an honest days work at any other job.

And I must say it's pretty troll-like of you to keep ignoring my statement that I think someone can morally decide to work in weapons design. You're using words like “scapegoat” as if I'm trying to blame something on weapons designers. I'm not, for the tenth time, I'm simply saying that it's a difficult decision each person must make for themselves.

⚛​

Im not ignoring your statement; however, I will use the term scapegoat when I see it being used. The way you phrased that sentence came off as making weapons some sort of evil thing, which is why I made the adjustment of your phrase.

What I'm saying is that I don't see what is difficult about this decision, provided you use a resonable approach to thinking it though.

Please answer my question about high energy lasers though.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Try not to be so cliche!

Oh heck, it obviously can't be true if it's a cliché. You're right, best intentions can't be completely useless for avoiding unintended consequences if there's a cliché about it. You wouldn't be making meaningless posing remarks so as to avoid the substance of what I'm saying, would you?

No, that is rediculous. Its a terrible analogy, I am not going to touch it. Ill leave that loaded gun for someone else to deal with (See, I can be cliche too ).

An analogy about giving someone irresponsible a weapon is a terrible analogy? You just wouldn't think about that in the course of your reasoning about whether or not designing weapons for someone is moral? Wow, you're like some kind of Einstein with this morality stuff.

Thats exactly right. And that's why its the responsibilty of you and me as citizens to make sure we don't put people in office that does this. Now, what does that have to do with designing weapons I ask?

Are you saying that you always implicitly trust your employer or that you always implicitly trust the government?

I sure can, and I sure did. Its just as moral as doing an honest days work at any other job.

Okay, just so we're clear on that point: Cyrus is saying all of these things because he believes himself to be a moral authority in other people's lives. You probably ought to become a priest or cleric instead of a weapons designer if your sense of morals is so superior to everyone else's.

Im not ignoring your statement; however, I will use the term scapegoat when I see it being used. The way you phrased that sentence came off as making weapons some sort of evil thing, which is why I made the adjustment of your phrase.

Deciding other people's morals for them, adjusting their phrases for them… do wipe drool off of stranger's mouths in public? Do you play with dolls, Cyrus? It might be something to take up because other people don't need you to do this stuff for them but dolls do.

What I'm saying is that I don't see what is difficult about this decision, provided you use a resonable approach to thinking it though.

The government must always be trusted and people who disagree with you are just thinking wrong, huh? You're coming across like a caricature, man.

Please answer my question about high energy lasers though.

After bypassing my guns and responsibility question above you're insisting on me answering your pet question about a particular technology? Real relevant to this ethics discussion. You aren't doing a great job living down the arrogant and immature stuff, nor in displaying any acumen in moral reasoning.

Are antimissile systems and other defensive measures important and worthwhile to employ in the defense of our country? Yes. Is anyone morally compelled to work on antimissile systems and other defensive measures? No. Is it immoral to not work on antimissile systems and other defensive measures? No.

⚛​