Comment by femiagbabiaka
21 days ago
Morality is completely subjective. Prior to certain events in the last year I would’ve said that there were some objective standards like minimizing harm to children, but that’s out the window now, with most of Big Tech implicated.
As a moderately less contentious example, Alex Karp argues fervently that it is immoral to not produce weapons of war for western countries and the U.S. in particular. Many people agree with him. Ultimately people justify their method of making a living in whichever way they choose, and tech workers are no different. History is the log of the winners and losers of the war between the adherents of different moral codes.
Morality is not completely subjective. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/701478
From the abstract this is a very interesting paper. I’ll spend this afternoon digging in. But I see a problem already: reality trumps academic exercise or humanity’s aggregated, self-description of its morality.
“Morality-as-cooperation draws on the theory of non-zero-sum games to identify distinct problems of cooperation and their solutions, and it predicts that specific forms of cooperative behavior—including helping kin, helping your group, reciprocating, being brave, deferring to superiors, dividing disputed resources, and respecting prior possession—will be considered morally good wherever they arise, in all cultures.”
Who is kin? Who are one’s superiors? What is prior possession? These are all questions of ideology and power. The only universal code all humanity agrees on is might makes right.
Everyone loves helping kin except when helping kin on the public dime. Morals are funny that way.
> The only universal code all humanity agrees on is might makes right.
This is a cynical and unjustifiable claim.
Obviously some people disagree. In fact in my experience people almost universally agrees might does not make right.
1 reply →
Isn't 'kin' an easy one here ? Genetic closeness first and foremost.
3 replies →
> "It is immoral to not produce weapons of war for western countries and the US in particular"
I cannot imagine that a substantial "many" people believe this. How does it work exactly? If you have any expertise even adjacent to weapons building (e.g. being a programmer) and you are not building weapons for the US due to a lack of effort (as opposed to failing the interview) you're doing something immoral?
I don't think many would agree with this. I suppose his stance is somehow more nuanced? (I wouldn't agree with it either, but at least it would be slightly more reasonable).
https://youtu.be/EZLr6EGGTPE?si=5ome3QBCQk20hpJD
This describes it fairly well, although I was thinking of a CNBC interview in particular. He does so many that it’s hard to catalogue.
The argument is roughly that “the west” and “western morality” are critical institutions to be protected, and refusing to protect them is immoral.
And yes, a lot of people support his ideals. Major chunks of the tech investment class, thousands of workers at Palantir, the U.S. State Department, the Acela corridor, etc. It is probably a minority viewpoint amongst normal Americans, but we’re talking about tech workers here. :)
Well, ok, people in the defense industry would agree it's not immoral to make weapons, and the more extremist may even call it immoral not to make weapons (though I doubt many would, this is an extreme view. I also wonder if it's truly heartfelt or simply convenient while they hold defense industry jobs, and forgotten when they start working elsewhere).
It doesn't follow at all that the best way to defend Western institutions is to build weapons.
(Yes, I realize these aren't your views and that you're merely describing them. But this Alex Karp guy isn't here to debate directly with him...)
2 replies →
> The argument is roughly that “the west” and “western morality” are critical institutions to be protected, and refusing to protect them is immoral.
"The West" as a collective lost all of the moral high ground it was supposed to have during the past few decades and particularly last year.
https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/the-moral-bankruptcy-of-t...
3 replies →
I did development work for casino bosses.
Clearly immoral. IMO more so than weapons.
I realy needed the job
>Prior to certain events in the last year I would’ve said that there were some objective standards like minimizing harm to children, but that’s out the window now, with most of Big Tech implicated.
You're saying as if it's indisputable that "Big Tech" was harming children, but we're nowhere close to that. At best, the current literature shows a very weak negative correlational relationship between social media use and mental health. That's certainly not enough to lambast "Big Tech" for failing to abide by "objective standards like minimizing harm to children".
Moreover I question whether "objective standards like minimizing harm to children" existed to begin with, or we're just looking at the past with rose tinted glasses. During the industrial revolution kids worked in factories and mines. In the 20th century they were exposed to lead and particulate pollution. Even if you grant that "Big Tech" was harming kids in some way, I doubt they're doing it in some unprecedented way like you implied.
I’m certainly going to get downvoted for this, but I’m referring to the use of computing resources for AI surveillance systems used in target selection in Gaza. That alongside the fact that Microsoft, Amazon, Google, NVIDIA etc. all vie for contracts with militaries domestic and global, implicates a large chunk of all tech workers in global strife.