Engineering Ethics: Struggles with Personal Ethics

[Cyrus]

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?

What you said was pathetic. You said the following below:

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!”

This is nothing more than nonsense. I understand the content of what you are implying; however, I think it was poorly presented by an poor analogy.

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.

As I said, the issue is not the weapons design but foreign policy, which is the duty of us as citizens to montior and take part in.

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

I never said this, so no. I am not saying that, now am I?

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.

Oh, grow up.

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.

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Somebodys got a case of the mondays.

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.

Perhaps you should read what I write with more care? I never said this.

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.

You're too kind.

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.

⚛​

No one said its immoral not to work on antimissile systems or other defensive measures. What I did say, is that it is moral to do so, even though they are weapons. Boy, you sure do read what you want to read, don't you?

Act like an adult if you want to talk to me. I don't know why all of a sudden you became so disrespectful.

 

[mgiddy911]

this discussion now reeks of ad hominem and red herring

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Cyrus, you no more shy away from calling what I've said pathetic or nonsensical than I shy away from calling your statements the same. You're posturing about being adult at the same time you're using those exact words.

As far as the analogy, you can stop pretending that's all I've said. As I elucidated, my question is about whether or not one can disclaim any moral responsibility if you hand over a weapon to someone who will quite probably use it irresponsibly or immorally. You have no further recourse to pretend that there's some nonsensical analogy standing in the way of you responding to that.

Speaking of behaving with respect, despite ignoring my question you demanded that I respond to one of yours and I did. Now put up or cut the posturing about being respectful.

And despite your artful derision - it needs to be remembered here that you have declared yourself a moral authority in the lives of others, you have claimed the right to make this moral decision for them. Try to play that down all you want but it's the very definition of arrogant and considerably more immature than you and I making fun of each other and calling each other nonsensical.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, you no more shy away from calling what I've said pathetic or nonsensical than I shy away from calling your statements the same. You're posturing about being adult at the same time you're using those exact words.

Excuse me, I didnt say things like "Wow, you're like some kind of Einstein with this morality stuff." and "Do you play with dolls, Cyrus?" to you? No, I did not.

As far as the analogy, you can stop pretending that's all I've said. As I elucidated, my question is about whether or not one can disclaim any moral responsibility if you hand over a weapon to someone who will quite probably use it irresponsibly or immorally. You have no further recourse to pretend that there's some nonsensical analogy standing in the way of you responding to that.

I already answered this question. Go back and read my posts if its not clear to you, and I can clarify.

Speaking of behaving with respect, despite ignoring my question you demanded that I respond to one of yours and I did. Now put up or cut the posturing about being respectful.

If I have missed one of your questions, then simply remind me; but, don't act like a fool in the process.

And despite your artful derision - it needs to be remembered here that you have declared yourself a moral authority in the lives of others, you have claimed the right to make this moral decision for them. Try to play that down all you want but it's the very definition of arrogant and considerably more immature than you and I making fun of each other and calling each other nonsensical.

⚛​

I never declared myself a moral authority on the lives of others. Now you are talking simply to hear your own voice.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

this discussion now reeks of ad hominem and red herring

An ad hominem argument is saying that someone's opinion is incorrect or faulty because there's something wrong with them personally. I'm not saying it's arrogant and immature for Cyrus to be deciding for other people whether it fits morally for them to become weapons designers because there's something wrong with Cyrus. It would be arrogant and immature for anyone to go around making that decision for other people.

But you're right, he's obviously throwing out quite a lot of red herrings because he's not satisfied with me simply saying it's moral for the OP or him to decide to work in the defense industry.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Excuse me, I didnt say things like "Wow, you're like some kind of Einstein with this morality stuff." and "Do you play with dolls, Cyrus?" to you? No, I did not.

You are excused.

You literally claim to be enough of a moral authority to make moral decisions for other people. The moral Einstein comment and the implication that you're treating people like dolls is just as appropriate as you calling me a nonsensical fool, and in fact my insults are related to the position you're actually taking as opposed to your generic dismissals of me.

I already answered this question. Go back and read my posts if its not clear to you, and I can clarify.

Oh, very respectful for you to avoid answering it for the third time in a row after calling the question ridiculous and pathetic. Funny how you're saying you've already answered it when your initial response was that you weren't going to touch it. Yes, go ahead and clarify: If someone were to give a weapon to an individual or organization like a toddler, a criminal, or a government, and that individual or organization used the weapon in an irresponsible manner, is it reasonable that in some situations like this and in some peoples' moral systems the giver of the weapon could be held morally accountable for the irresponsible use of the weapon?

I never declared myself a moral authority on the lives of others. Now you are talking simply to hear your own voice.

Ah, another claim that I'm foolish or addled or deranged somehow. You're so respectful and adult, Cyrus.

I said:

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 you responded:

I sure can…

At the time you didn't even protest the point that doing so would be arrogant and immature. But I'm sure you'll come up with some way to say that this direct quotation of your words is nonsense or craziness on my part.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

You're done. Come back when you grow up and can act civil.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Oh! And he flames out still with no comeback on those q's! The direct quote of your own preposterous arrogance was too much, eh?

As from the beginning, I think it's perfectly fine if you or the OP want to be weapons designers. But of course that wasn't good enough - getting me aggravated with you is exactly the response you were trying to provoke, wasn't it? You are a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll" , Cyrus.

⚛​

 

[Cyrus]

Oh! And he flames out still with no comeback on those q's! The direct quote of your own preposterous arrogance was too much, eh?

As from the beginning, I think it's perfectly fine if you or the OP want to be weapons designers. But of course that wasn't good enough - getting me aggravated with you is exactly the response you were trying to provoke, wasn't it? You are a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll" , Cyrus.

⚛​

Actually, not it was not. I am sorry if you got worked up, but I was not trying to provoke you. I honestly couldn't figure out why you suddenly went from a civilzed discussion to throwing crap in my direction, but whatever...

 

[Mathemaniac]

If you believe that what the establishment is doing with those weapons is for the best, and that belief is well-educated, I don't think there's a moral problem. That is to say, if you know that they use them only when absolutely necessary and that their use will ultimately save more innocent lives than it will destroy (that is, saving lives both literally and figuratively speaking).

Personally, I find the current establishment (that of the USA, where I live) incredibly untrustworthy and far too irresponsible to be given control of such killing machines, so I'd have difficulty justifying myself in that profession. I won't debate this here, as it is ultimately up to you to decide whether or not these politicians and bureaucrats are trustworthy, but I'd suggest that your judgments should be well-educated and guided with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Actually, not it was not. I am sorry if you got worked up, but I was not trying to provoke you. I honestly couldn't figure out why you suddenly went from a civilzed discussion to throwing crap in my direction, but whatever...

Just in case you're actually being sincere here even though you again dodged the responsibility question, I wrote the following account pointing out your trollish behavior. I normally wouldn't get all explicit like this but if you really aren't seeing your own behavior you should.

[post=1623420]Here[/post] you claimed that I and the other people who had responded to you were avoiding your issue - which I hadn't been, as I pointed out [post=1623511]here[/post]. In that post you also said something about cowardice, which even if it was not directed against your interlocutors is a kinda provocative thing to bring up.

When you [post=1623516]replied[/post], instead of responding to any of the several paragraphs of things I'd said or acknowledging that I had not been avoiding the issue you brought up, you made a one-sentence demand for examples of military adventurism.

I responded to your demand [post=1623553]voluminously[/post] with three different examples, details about them, and a photograph. But instead of acknowledging that I'd fulfilled your demand and provided examples, you dismissed one out of three of them in [post=1623558]two sentences[/post].

See this pattern of how you make a demand or an accusation against me or craft an offhanded (and frequently erroneous) dismissal of evidence I've put together, and I respond to it, then you ignore what I've said? And don't even acknowledge that I've done what you asked or replied to your objections? That's troll behavior. And it certainly contributed to me taking a rather dim view of you dodging my questions.

Then you also start breaking out things like “You need to phrase your statements properly” - after I'm the one writing and researching and providing links in response to your demands and objections - when I've already said that it's perfectly okay for you to go into the defense industry if you want to - you're going to complain about and cast aspersions about the way I'm phrasing things? And furthermore when you do begin to respond more verbosely, it's to drop sound bites like “[post=1624415]That's just a cliché![/post]” rather than actually responding to what I said, accompanied by making faces.

And then of course, after all of the above, you start posturing about being more reasonable - dismissing a question I put to you as ridiculous and pathetic - and then later you try to put on a posture of being more adult. And insist that you have the right to make moral judgments for other people, then claim that you didn't say that. And to top it off, you have now avoided the first question that I insisted you answer, instead of the other way around, four times in a row.

So intentional or not you certainly have behaved in a provocative manner.

⚛​

 

[Shackleford]

If you believe that what the establishment is doing with those weapons is for the best, and that belief is well-educated, I don't think there's a moral problem. That is to say, if you know that they use them only when absolutely necessary and that their use will ultimately save more innocent lives than it will destroy (that is, saving lives both literally and figuratively speaking).

Personally, I find the current establishment (that of the USA, where I live) incredibly untrustworthy and far too irresponsible to be given control of such killing machines, so I'd have difficulty justifying myself in that profession. I won't debate this here, as it is ultimately up to you to decide whether or not these politicians and bureaucrats are trustworthy, but I'd suggest that your judgments should be well-educated and guided with a healthy dose of skepticism.

And what is the basis for your untrustworthy and irresponsible claims? Is it the media's reporting of "mistreating" of terrorists? Do you think they're going to just give up valuable information politely? - information that could save lives or bring the enemy down?

 

[PowerIso]

And what is the basis for your untrustworthy and irresponsible claims? Is it the media's reporting of "mistreating" of terrorists? Do you think they're going to just give up valuable information politely? - information that could save lives or bring the enemy down?

I'm not speaking for him, but I will point this out for you.

I'd have difficulty justifying myself in that profession. I won't debate this here, as it is ultimately up to you to decide whether or not these politicians and bureaucrats are trustworthy, but I'd suggest that your judgments should be well-educated and guided with a healthy dose of skepticism.

He made his choice and he isn't alone. I support his assertion that this current administration cannot be trusted. It seemed like after 9/11 Bush turned a 180. When he was the governor of Texas, he wasn't half bad. He even did his part in promoting green living in Texas. Prior to becoming president, he was against preemptive strikes but after 9/11 his attitude changed completely. His actions, he claims, are justified by the fact that the world is different now.

I wouldn't say different, these people have all ways been after us, but now, since we've been hit at home, we see it more clearly. Of course no one cared about the possible ramifications of our interference in middle easy policies until now, yet we don't learn our lessons.

Some odd years after 9/11 instead of heeding the lessons learn, we ignore them and actually become more involved into middle easy policy believing WE can change an ancient society that has resisted change violently for many years.

When people who have such a lack of understanding on culture, history, and such a disrespect for life and rights, I am, however unfortunate it is, forced to ask "how did this great nation become such a safe haven for those who disbelieve in everything this country stood for at one point or another?" Then I look up and see the snarly faces of the neo-cons and I become sad. Sad that our country was lost to so few.

 

[Mathemaniac]

And what is the basis for your untrustworthy and irresponsible claims? Is it the media's reporting of "mistreating" of terrorists? Do you think they're going to just give up valuable information politely? - information that could save lives or bring the enemy down?

I do not wish to derail this thread with a debate about whether or not our current political system is trustworthy in this thread, nor do I wish to push my judgment of that matter on to other people. And I'm not sure why you think torture or military secrets have anything to do with my judgment. There is a difference between military secrets, kept for the sake of security, and the outright dishonesty of politicians, which is really my motivating factor here.

I am ultimately convinced that such inquiries are worthwhile. Considering the ceaseless joke that is American politics, the deceitful people involved, and how easy it is for special interests to influence it (going into names or specifics would derail this thread in a heartbeat), it is by no means unreasonable at all to ask whether or not these folks are worthy of bearing the responsibility of controlling any kind of killing machine. And I think the builders of such machines are morally obligated to at least ask such questions, if nothing more.