If you’re worried about ethics, it’s going to be very difficult finding a job that will make you a living that is ethical.
I mean… you can upstream everything. I work for a place that sells outdoor sports gear. Pretty benign unless you do a deep dive into supply chains and the like.
For the record, I did work at a place the built parts for cruise missiles. It sucked. I quit
It of course depends on the context and choice of ethics framework. If the decision is personal I like to use the shorthand: If you have the privilege to choose, then choose to build the type of future you want to live in.
No. But people have different ideas of what’s ethical and what’s not.
If you ask in a pro military or Conservative space you’ll probably be told “yes”.
You’ll have to decide for yourself whether you could live with working for such a company. Everyone needs to eat and if that’s your best choice for work then it may not be such an easy choice.
I don’t think it is inherently unethical to work for a defense supplier, but it obviously depends on the country it is supplying. We in the West certainly need a strong defense industry. China and Russia both have publicly declared their intention to conquer other countries. Just ask Ukraine or Taiwan. Or Europe. Europe can’t properly support Ukraine because its defense industry is so fragmented, politicized and atrophied.
Yes.
Pacifism is a moronic stance as a rule, born out of coddled overprivileged upbringings. War and weaponry have been a cornerstone of humanity since the first time a guy brained another guy with a rock.
Not building weapons simply means you’ll have fewer, nobody else will do you the courtesy of not attacking you because you were nice and didn’t proliferate.
There’s a reason the most peaceful country on earth, Switzerland, has most adults as trained members of the reserves, and everyone has access to state mandated weapons of war either in their homes or their local armouries.
How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go for collateral ethical responsibility?
If you work on the power grid that has a weapons manufacturer are you responsible for every use of that weapon?
If you provide clean water, and workers of a weapons factory drink that water, are you now responsible for the weapons?
If you design a weapon safety system, to prevent misfires, are you not responsible for the other uses of the weapon?
If you make a composite steel alloy, and some of the purchasers of that alloy are weapons manufacturers etc etc etc
in my opinion this is very straightforward. the people working directly on power, water and materials don’t have any control over how those things are used and often don’t/can’t know what they’re being used for. however, at some point, a decision is made - for example, someone at the company that makes the steel alloy decides to sell it to raytheon - and so whoever made that decision is responsible.
and yes, if you work on a weapon safety system, you are working on an essential part of that weapon and so are responsible for its use
It’s not always straightforward. I work as a software developer at a company which creates scientific measurement instruments. These instruments are used to do research into new battery types, and make cement greener. But they are also used extensively by the fossil fuel industry. I do struggle with the ethics of this.
For now I’ve decided to keep doing the job and make good money. When we’ve figured some other shit out in our lives we’ll most likely move, and I’ll give it another shot to work a job which I feel better about.
If the choice is starve or work for this company, then yes its ethical.
If your skills and experience can transfer to other companies and jobs, then no its not ethical IMO.
How far do you take it?
Work in food supply that feeds the people who make end weapons?
Working in that industry you’re creating food. It’s purpose is to nourish people. Working in an industry that makes weapons to harm, and kill is intrinsically different.
Do you believe that a nation has no need for weapons?
Or rather is it immoral for a nation to keep and equip a defence force?
If you know that your nation is going to use the weapons for imperialism (as America Russia and China do) they in fact need less weapons.
What imperialism is America doing currently?
But besides that, even if your nation is doing imperialist things surely you would agree that maintaining an army to not get your country absolutely destroyed by any other country at any time is valid
The biggest new one right now is Pakistan but all the old ones such as DRC too of course
And you know… Israel…
In what world are those imperialist projects? Can you qualify that in some way? Let’s go with 1, say Pakistan
Probably fine if you are the janitor. If you are the engineer in charge of maximising “effectiveness” of weaponry well…
I’m going to disagree on that one. Anything to do that helps enabling it is morally wrong.
Paying taxes? Most of that goes to military spending in the US
That’s factually not true.
Yes that is “morally wrong” as well. The difference is that you don’t have a choice.
Moral wrongs become less wrong the less of a choice you have to make them.
Stealing is bad, but I have no problem with a starving person that steals.
Yes. I don’t want my effort to be dedicated to death and destruction. Imagine you’re the guy who designed the iconic Tomahawk cruise missile. You can’t mistake that profile. Every time you see or hear about one of those things being launched you know there’s a good chance many people are going to die. Who wants that on their conscience?
There’s a difference, in my opinion, between designing a weapon and just being a generic worker at the company.
As a generic worker, the end result isn’t any different whether it was you or someone else. For example, I don’t think a guy who works at a Tesla factory could be considered responsible if the self driving malfunctions and kills someone. He might have directly contributed to the car that got built, but if he didn’t work that job the car would have still been made and the tragedy would still have happened.
As soon as you are asking this seriously, the answer for you personally is: better don’t.
You don’t know the future, you can never know what will be done with the things you have built and who will be doing it.
If you are a young person, you are simply looking to make money (and maybe don’t do much harm at the same time, but that’s second priority), and I think that’s quite OK for a while.
The older you get, the more weight you put on the question: what are you really doing there every day and for whose benefit?
Counterpoint: what about all the weapons used by Ukraine to defend itself and western democracy against Russian aggression and imperialism? Should those not have been made?
Edit: Editing my most top level comment to point out possible subsequent vote brigading. When this post was only half a day old I received way more upvotes than the people I debated. Now that this post has gotten older the ratio is closer to neutral without any new comments pointing to any flaws in my argument. Hence, I think my debate partners felt the need to involve their equally misled friends to downvote my arguments and upvote their previously negatively voted comments back into the positives. Seems very inorganic to me.
Edit 2: The above edit is mostly meant for my discussion thread with NeoNachtwaechter.
In peacetime, countries do not make as many weapons as they can. They make as many weapons as they think they need, based on how many weapons they think their rivals have. So when you make a weapon, you also make a lot of other countries make weapons. And this weapon buildup increases the risk of war.
In a perfectly peaceful world where autocracies can live side by side with democracies you may have a point. But autocratic Russia’s war of aggression on democratic Ukraine certainly paints a different picture to your wishful thinking. The lesson for democratic countries is therefore clear: If you don’t want to be invaded by uncooperative and irrational autocracies, you have to build up as much military capacity as your unpredictable systemic rivals. Remind me again, who had the military advantage by sheer numbers in the war on Ukraine?
Addendum: The entirety of the Cold War arms race without any major escalation between the US and the USSR is disproving your claim regarding increasing the risk of war btw.
If you don’t want to be invaded by uncooperative and irrational autocracies, you have to build up as much military capacity as your unpredictable systemic rivals.
Every resource spent on weapons is a resource not spent on infrastructure / education / what have you. Military expenditure is at best a necessary evil; a better option is to have just enough weapons to stop an enemy’s initial attack, and to invest the rest of your resources into building industrial capacity that can be used for military production if the need arises.
Remind me again, who had the military advantage by sheer numbers in the war on Ukraine?
Russia doesn’t calculate how many weapons it needs to produce depending on how many Ukraine has. It’s main threats are the other superpowers - the US and China. So of course in a conflict with Ukraine they will have a massive advantage.
Your first paragraph ist simply paraphrasing my entire comment, so you agree with me. Regarding your second paragraph: Then why did they attack and invade Ukraine, if it is neither a threat nor a rivaling power? Kind of looks like Ukraine having not enough arms to defend itself was one of the prime motives for Russia.
Right, I’m not saying countries should dismantle their armies, just that weapon manufacturing and stockpiling should be avoided as far as possible unless your country is under attack.
Ukraine was similarly lacking in arms from 1990 to 2014. Russia only felt the need to attack when it felt threatened that Ukraine might join NATO, because that could result in US troops on its doorstep.
Ah yea, Ukrainian does not want to follow orders for Russia or even considers joining NATO is for sure a very valid reason to attack, murder and rape Ukrainians! I totally forgot about this brilliant piece of Russian propaganda! But thanks for read from the Putin bible for us!!! I think the idea of all weapons are bad, is a idea born by people far far away from any dictators or aggressive neighbors etc. if you go to Ukraine, South Korea, Taiwan or Surinam, then you might realize this is a luxury stance. Not every redneck needs a AR, but there are people who only sink ships in the read sea, because fuck everyone else. I think working in defense is not bad, as long as you do not try to sell your tech to dictators or Mexican drug cartels. So it would be good if the company complies to certain values…
I wish I had a thorough answer for you, but I’m afraid it would be very, very complicated. This war came out of a complex situation and we (westerners) can understand only a fraction of it all.
But I give you just a simple idea to think about:
Imagine all these weapons would not have existed, on both sides, then maybe there would have been a war anyway, but probably much less killing and suffering.
I agree with you in theory, but the current reality just does not give a fuck about wishful thinking. As long as there are despots like Putin, Xi Jinping, et al., who see our democratic values as a threat to their own autocratic views we simply have to live with the fact that we have to build weapons to deter their imperialistic goals.
Now that is not only too simple thinking, but it is also not true. As far as your weapons are used there, it is for your own imperialistic goals.
So you prefer autocracies over democracies? Am I understanding you correctly?
Now you are mixing up things badly. The answer is No. You are not understanding.
I think I am understanding you very well. You say democratic imperialism is just as bad as autocratic imperialism, creating a false balance when you agree that autocracies are inherently worse for humanity than democracies. Furthermore, Ukraine was attacked by a far more capable force than their own. They, by the very definition of imperialism, cannot be imperialistic by simply fighting for its own survival against an autocratic and clearly imperialist Russia.
Yes. Defense is important. Pacifism is unworkable in today’s geopolitical sphere. Weapons create peace.
It’s fine. The designers of a weapon aren’t responsible for how its used.
Absolutely not.
Yes Ukraine is an example of a good use for a defense industry but US history is littered with tragedies, massacres and massive amounts of suffering from all the other bad things having a defense industry does.
No - it’s not ethical.
Very little evil is actually a direct result of evil people doing evil things. The vast majority of it comes to be through ordinary people doing banal things - things that, like building weapons, are questionable at best, but that they excuse because it’s “out of my control.”
The thing is that it’s not out of their control. Yes - if one individual makes the decision to not take part, that’s not going to have much of an effect, but if every person who feels the same way makes that same choice, that absolutely WILL have an effect.
And there’s only one way to make it so that every person who feels the same way makes that choice, and that’s for each one of them, individually, to look past that “it’s out of my control” bullshit excuse and go ahead and do it.
Everything on any significant scale is out of individual control. Individuals just possess a very limited amount of control over affairs on a national, much less global, scale. But that’s really entirely beside the point. The point is how you choose to exercise the small amount of control you have. Will you use it for good, or for evil?
I think the argument is kinda weak, because from my decision to do something (like construct a weapon) the other workers at the factories don’t change their opinion. For these kinds of events to happen, there must either already be a huge grudge in the workforce, so that you’re the “tipping point”, or you have to be as charismatic as a reborn Jesus and convince everyone to follow you. Both of these events seem implausible here. Thus, your decision to make or not make a weapon will not influence others, and the outcome won’t be significant.
However, I’d love to have your input on it. I think the question if for the judgment of an action it is important that it is significant (or not) is a fundamentally important one, so I’d really appreciate your response here :)
the other workers at the factories don’t change their opinion.
And some number of those workers have the exact same opinion that you do - they’re opposed, but they don’t think they can make a difference.
And if all of you stopped waiting around for some charismatic leader to tell you what to do and just went ahead and made the choice you prefer, you would make a difference.
Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn’t true. Lots of people have tried rebelling and fighting against a regime, but failed. So this logic doesn’t apply in every case, does it?
Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn’t true.
How did you not get my point?
We’ll try it this way:
Thirty people live in a town.
Ten of them, with a leader, want some policy implemented
Twenty of them oppose the policy.
The ten with a leader organize and push for the policy
The twenty who oppose it stand around with their thumbs up their asses, each of them telling themselves that they can’t accomplish anything by themselves.
The policy gets implemented
Or
The ten with a leader organize and push for a policy.
The twenty who oppose it each, individually, pull their thumbs out of their asses and stand up and say they oppose it.
Each of those individuals, making their individual choices, finds themselves surrounded by nineteen other individuals who made the same individual choice.
They easily outnumber the ten who want the policy and the policy fails.
That’s exactly how and why individuals going ahead and making their individual choices instead of failing to do it because “I can’t make a difference by myself” can make a difference.
All they have to do is stop waiting around for somebody to lead them, pull their thumbs out of their asses, and just go ahead and do it on their own, each one as an individual.
Okay, let me rephrase - for me it sounds that if people work together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Aka, if I am one of the twenty who sit around and do nothing, stand up, I on my own probably won’t be able to block the policy. But if I stand up, there’s a good chance others will get up as well and do. Or maybe I’ll discover that after I stand up, there are three others of whom I haven’t suspected anything, but who now also oppose the policy. And thus by standing up, you also influence others. If that is successful (aka if you can stop the policy or not), you can only find out afterwards.
Is that right?
I started in defense, but I would now after 15+ years not do any work in defense or gambling or trading. It was a good experience for me though, taught me a lot, but I wouldn’t do it again now.
Would there be any aspect of defense you would consider? For example another comment mentioned situational awareness, etc. Basically weapons systems which might STOP them from being used on civilians?
No, I blacklisted the whole industry and will not take any job there.
