zokrDo you think it is ethical to work for a company that builds drones, weaponry, or supplies parts to the military?
I think this question boils down to this: Do your actions have a net positive or a net negative affect on the world? Does working at this company in some way offset the harm that the company is doing downstream? In this case I have a hard time coming up with a reasonable way in which this might be the case. Paying you and your family to have stuff doesn’t offset causing actual death and physical harm.
I mean … not saying I 100% agree, but isn’t the logical counter argument being defense and deterrence?
I use to be much much more ideologically against arms production, but honestly, seeing what’s happening in Ukraine has given me some pause and caused me to reflect a lot. When a tyrant like Putin can amass a huge amount of weaponry and just decide to invade and impose a totalitarian dictatorship on a neighbouring country, and the only thing that has stopped him is a mass amount of better weaponry, it muddies the moral waters a lot.
This is true, but on a personal level I have no idea how to do the calculus for, “My work is killing people, but it would have been worse if it hadn’t.” I think the show “The Good Place” got it right and it is just too interconnected and complicated to actually derive an answer as to whether an action is net negative or positive. That said, if I had to place money on a given action being negative, working for an arms manufacturer would be one I’d be fairly comfortable betting on.
No. I left the military because I couldn’t morally justify staying in.
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.
Good point.
I’d think that the work these folks in Ukraine are doing would be an example of ethical (and, my God, it must be fulfilling) defense work.
DIY Drones: War Will Never be the Same
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.
But just don’t ask Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Lybia, Panama, Afghanistan…
No, do ask them. Go ahead. Some will try to outright murder you for unrelated reasons. Some do not regard the US as a threat any more and the rest will turn out to be goddam assholes you’d wish to be bombed again.
Ah yes, America killing literally tens of million: righteous! China killing literally no one, absolute scum of the earth!
Huh? China has been killing tons of people in their concentration camps.
When did America kill tens of millions? China certainly did kill tens of millions under Mao. Did you make a mistake and reverse the order?
You can’t possibly be serious. You’ve got to be a troll.
Vietnam: 3~4,000,000 (not account for the the devastatinf effects of agent orange) Cambodia: 500,000 (not counting US involvement in continuing Khmer Rouge’s massacres) Laos: 50,000 (not accounting for the still ongoing issue of unexploded ordinances) Korea: 2~4,000,000 Iraq desert storm: 1,000,000+ Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria: 400,00 direct violent deaths and 3~4,000,000 indirect deaths.
Shall I continue?
Not going to retract your comment about China then?
HjalmarHe has never claimed that China hasn’t murdered anyone? Neither has he opposed your claim that China killed millions (which they sure did).
It’s really sad to see this type of reactions when people try to say anything against the US. Questioning the US is not the same thing as supporting china, whatever US politicians want you to believe.
What? You clearly didn’t read the thread. This was his comment:
“China killing literally no one, absolute scum of the earth!”
Here is the comment I thought of:
Ah yes, America killing literally tens of million: righteous! China killing literally no one, absolute scum of the earth!
Never takes much for the shoe to drop with you people.
He might have written something else around here or he has edited the comment and then you may be completely correct. In such case please excuse me for being a bit rude :)
Your conflating policy failures (for which he absolutely took responsibility) to war of aggression. If you can’t see how these two aren’t the same you can’t be helped.
Found the tankie, lol!
Excusing Mao’s world record mass murders as a “policy failure”.
Korea seems like a really bad example for you, since the South relies on the US to prevent invasion.
I wonder who was leading South Korea for like fourth years after the war? There’s no way it would a fascist dictator was it? Yes, no peace treaty was ever signed. What is your point exactly? Why do you think the north has somehow less of a claim than a country that had to be propped up by the world’s biggest bully for decades?
Come on, more even the north admits they don’t want unification, just that South Korea is their number one enemy.
As for the dictator, yes the was bad and dark times. But nowadays SK definitely doesn’t want to get taken over by NK.
Yeah, since literally this year. Nearly sixty years on.
As for the dictator, yes the was bad and dark times.
The US didn’t seem to.see that as a problem.
We in the West certainly need a strong defense industry.
But our defense industry sells arms to more or less anyone willing to pay. Most types of arms have basically become commodities, and the net effect of anyone producing more is that arms become cheaper and more accessible worldwide.
I’m no expert on arms control, but I’m pretty sure the industry in the West can only sell to approved countries. But, yes, I take your point that there is always some form of arms race happening in the world and keeping the arms industry going means having to sell more arms, which will be used to kill people at some point. Unfortunately, we still need a defense industry.
Politically Incorrect
GrymEdmIt’s a complex question, but I think the short answer is it depends on if your country has safeguards in place to control where that manufactured equipment goes. A few months ago I watched a video interview of a US State Department official who publicly resigned because he felt those safeguards (specifically laws of war and laws of proportionality) had been bypassed during recent arms transfer to Israel. I could see someone quitting their military manufacturing or engineering jobs for the same reasons. Whether or not you agree with how your nation’s arms are being used is a matter of personal ethics and involves things like political accountability.
I know I want my country to have self-defense capabilities, and that means having a well-supplied military. Thus I support at least some arms manufacturing. I very much dislike the idea of it being entangled with major economic factors because I don’t want war to make economic sense - i.e. “drive the industry”. My guess is a lot of people worldwide would like to see less arms-for-profit trading because it makes military industrialists rich at the expense of weapons spreading around the world and often causing harm to innocent people.
He quit the State Department over US support for Israel. Here's why he did it
originaluciferdo you feel what the united states spends on its military is proportionate to its direct defense requirement?
i think were up to 950b/year in 'danger'
I’m not wise/educated enough to give a certain answer honestly. I sure feel like there’s a lot more spending being done that is probably required, and the DoD has failed multiple audits for 6 years now. So there’s cause for concern or at least accountability about where the US taxpayer’s money is ending up. 950 billion buys a lot of infrastructure, teachers, healthcare, debt relief, etc. so it’s not unreasonable for citizens to want to know what they’re gaining in exchange for giving those things up.
On the other hand, I live in Canada and the hard truth is we rely on the USA for a lot of our military needs. I know if Putin decides Ukraine isn’t enough and he starts eyeing Canadian land (say in the Arctic), then I’m going to want to know NATO can win. My final take is probably that US military spending could be moderated, but cuts should be made carefully with justification.
I work for an aerospace and defense contractor. The vast majority of my activities over the years has been for non-military space flight, but not all of it, I’ve also worked on torpedos, missile defense, and other military systems.
When I started working for the company, it was on the space shuttle project, so the military part didn’t even occur to me (though the shuttle did place some military payloads). When I was first asked to support the military side, I found myself doing some soul searching, and I decided the main question I had to ask myself was, “Should the United States have weapons or a military?” I pretty quickly decided the answer was yes.
Does that mean I agree with every military action the government has taken? No, far from it. But there have also been many I do agree with, and I for sure believe the country needs a strong military.
So yes, I believe it’s ethical.
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.
I feel like this really depends on your options. Ethics are less crucial when your options are lesser as well.
If you’re choosing between equally paying jobs in military contracting vs saving lives? Pretty easy choice to me. If you’re choosing between doing manual labor for a military supplier vs your family being on the street? Also a pretty easy choice.
Ethics are less crucial when your options are lesser as well.
But that may be an illusion, and your conscience may tell you about it - later.
TheSpermWhaleThis is something I wrestle with sometimes as an engineering student and I think it does vary from country to country. You’ve got to ask yourself how the world would be different without those companies - whether other less friendly countries would come to prominence and whether the removal of the such a deterrence would make wars more common. But on the other hand, you should think about how those weapons are used and whether it’s ‘right’ like the defence of Ukraine, or more objectionable like some of the more polarising conflicts around the world. It’s a very difficult question but personally I don’t think I would work for a weapons company coz I don’t know how I’d feel about making something that is designed to kill people
My opinion is threefold:
It is always ethical to not starve to death. (Caveat: assuming you are not directly harming someone else) If the only job available to you is making supplies for the military, don’t beat yourself up. We live in a capitalist hellscape, you need to pay rent, you need to buy food, you need health insurance, you need to be able to have vacations and save for retirement and do fun things from time to time. If you can do anything to mitigate that harm–participate in demonstrations, donate to aid organizations, etc–do that; but if you’re not in a situation to be able to do those things, you’re not being unethical. You’re just doing what you can.
It is always ethical to do less harm. If your company makes support equipment for military applications–desk chairs, for example, or toilet paper–your job is more ethical than the job making, you know, bombs or bullets or napalm or whatever. A job making things that are not inherently harmful but can be used in the course of causing harm– well, let’s be honest, that’s every job.
A job in military supply is as ethical as the company you work for and the military they sell to. If your company is selling smart bombs to Russia’s military, try to get out. But if your company is selling to a military that uses the products of your labor to mount a defense against an invading force, what you’re doing might even be helping to reduce death.
But overall, “ethicalness” is not a binary, and it’s not the same in every situation.
you need to be able to have vacations and save for retirement and do fun things from time to time
ahem actually people only need to exist and survive until they work themselves to death getting tangled in the gears of my spinning jennys
EduardVery good criterias! I think OP posted a great question, and your philosophy seems to be a very interesting merge of a virtue-based approach (that A/B is always good/bad) and an utilitarian one. I like it at a lot :)
Pretty sure its just moral relitivism.
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?
FubarberryThere’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.
That missile may be used by Ukraine defending against Russians attackers trying to kill them. Sure people die as a result of your work, but you also allow others to live.
The real unethical thing is for anyone - regardless of where you work - to allow your military weapons to be used for "evil". (Note that I didn't define evil)
It is in the nature of people to fight and exploit others. No pacifist society would last long without weaponry. Hence, we need people to make weapons. I’m also an animal lover who eats meat and recognise the hypocrisy in my position.
The trouble with weapons is that after we’ve made them we are no longer in control of how they are used. I would rather use my talents to improve other people’s lives but I understand why people make guns.
It’s ethical, the parts will be made whether you work that job or not, and you’re only responsible for the actions of the military to the extent that you’re able to change them.
Since none of your reasonable options will make an impact on the production or use of those items, it’s not a ethical issue for you to work there.
What matters much more is your ability to provide for yourself and those around you.
It’s ethical, the parts will be made whether you work that job or not
What if you are the best one at your job? If all the others are only able to make inferior weapons as soon as they have to do it without you?
Doesn’t eveybody try to do the work as good as they can?
nope, not if you care about human beings. the united states especially is under no threat requiring a near trillion dollar a year 'defense'
the military-industrial complex is a jobs-welfare program, but none of them will admit they are welfare recipients.
many people can overlook their particular part as 'well, my role isnt making a bullet that will go through a human, so what i do for this company is ok'
im not that delusional.
many people can overlook their particular part
People are amazingly good at this.
“I just make the munitions, I don’t use them”.
“I just load the munitions, I don’t actually fire the weapon”.
“I just fire the weapon, I didn’t put my target into the warzone”.
“If I wasn’t, someone else would anyway”.
Collectively, no. Personally, yes. People deserve to make a living.
gitgudDefinitely not if you have the opportunity to work somewhere else.
(I’ll just leave this here)[www.kyivpost.com/post/27330]
From my perspective, definitely if for Ukraine. I think it depends on what you can reasonably infer the weapons will be used for. If that lines up with your beliefs, go for it.
YouTube has taught me that weapons are only used against menacing watermelons and disturbed canisters, in your backyard.
/s
infinitevalenceIf 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.
Yeah most engineers in defense work aren’t starved for jobs, but in fact are paid the most by military contractors. It’s like Snowden working for Booz Allen Hamilton, government contractors pay talented people a ton to advance their goals and keep their mouth shut. But they could make less working somewhere else
AussiemandeusHow 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 Bluetooth 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?
LinkerbaanIf 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
In what world are those imperialist projects?
Can you qualify that in some way? Let’s go with 1, say Pakistan