Comment by Sharlin
6 days ago
Yeah, there are reasons why "someone is going to do it anyway" is a classic example of an ethically unsound argument.
6 days ago
Yeah, there are reasons why "someone is going to do it anyway" is a classic example of an ethically unsound argument.
It isn't ethically unsound. It's a commons/coordination problem. What is the optimal strategy in infinite-round prisoners dilemma with randomized opponents? The randomization effectively makes it an infinite series of one-round prisoners dilemma. So the best strategy is always to defect.
The only way you can change this is very high social trust, and all of society condemning anyone who ever defects.
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.
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”.
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.
3 replies →
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
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
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.
1 reply →
> 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.
1 reply →
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.
1 reply →
Care to articulate them?
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.
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.