How Do Developers Handle Moral Dilemmas?

DwightFagen asks: "I'm curious to know how developers in the Slashdot community handle situations in which they are given a project that rubs against their moral borders. I was recently hired as a Flash developer for a design and development company and am just beginning my second project. This particular assignment is to build the video portion of an online magazine. This magazine deals with various topics and is by no means a pornographic site (although some content may border on that), but it seems one of its key tenets is to be untethered by social moral values. Though I do not believe such things should in any way be censored or banned from the internet, I do not wish to actively support something I believe to be an exploitation of human beings. What would you in the Slashdot community do in such a situation? Have any of you dealt with something like this before?" "For the sake of clarity, I'd like to mention that I'm all for the freedom of expression on the internet and that I do not in any way judge people based on the media they choose to consume.

If this were a clear cut case of pornography, my choice would be simple; but that is not the case. I do still hold myself to certain standards and believe in the value of integrity and I would also like to do work that my family and friends can be proud of (or at least work that I could show them). However, I would also like to keep my job and would not want to put my small company of very nice people in a difficult position (as the deadline is not so far off)."

Comments

Simple

[arb]

If you are uncomfortable with the work you are being required to do, state so clearly to your boss and request that you not be placed on this project. Talk it through with your boss and see what can be done. If you feel strongly enough about it, find another job where such issues are not likely to arise.

Re:Simple

[tcopeland]

> If you feel strongly enough about it, find another
> job where such issues are not likely to arise.

That's the crux of the matter. There are approximately one slew of jobs out there that won't be morally questionable, and you'll sleep better at night knowing that you're not enabling nasty behavior. It's a small victory but an important one.

Also, for Flash UI goodness, try ActionStep. It's an open source, BSD licensed UI framework for Flash. We use it in indi and it's good stuff.

Re:Simple

[BalkanBoy]

There's a small caveat there - if your boss is a dick (on the off chance), if you state your moral objection, he might perceive you as a primma donna. Depending on your boss' tenure/reputation in the company (you DID keep your eyes open to notice this up to this point, right?), at that point you will have two choices - leave or stay. Depending on what the moral of the story you tell yourself is as a result of your boss' inability to yield to your objection, you will then again be left with one of two "feelings" (notice the binary pattern in choices - do or don't) - one of moral superiority, followed by resentment and unhappiness (or a few other choice words that you will use to describe the 'feelings' that will follow the rejection), or another, less likely "feeling" - of "who gives a shit, let's move on and see things his way."

It is at that point where the boys get separated from the men, as they say in the army. And, no, I'm not an army person. I'm an experienced senior software engineer, with a CS degree and 10 years of software engineering experience.

Good day now.

p.s. if you think finding another job will vindicate you - think again.

Re:Simple

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Request that you not be placed on this project.

I believe that to be a cop-out.

Unless you are of rare talent, your labor is fungible within the company. If you go to another project for the same company, then another engineer who would have worked on that project can now do the work you found to be distasteful. But you are still enabling the company to produce the distasteful work.

Either you are OK with being a contributor to the work product that you find distasteful or not. You can quit, or you could do a wholly different task within the company (like move from developer to marketing) so that you don't 'free up' someone else to do the work. But otherwise, you might as well just do it yourself and see if you might be able to influence it to be less distasteful than originally planned.

Re:Simple

[__aaclcg7560]

There's a small caveat there - if your boss is a dick (on the off chance), if you state your moral objection, he might perceive you as a primma donna.

I was caught in that situation at a video game company. The company had a Team Day T-shirt design contest for the employees that my supervisor managed to win. Since my co-workers were upset that someone in management won the contest with a blatent rip off of the XBox logo and I was taking a business ethics class at the time, I notified HR that they mismanaged the contest. HR dropped the T-shirt design and asked marketing to come up with a design based on recent titles being released for that year. My supervisor was not a happy camper when the shirts were handed out and his team was overwhelmly defeated at the Team Day events (he blamed HR for stacking his team with all the women -- that's because the women didn't hate him as much as everyone else). The next day I got a verbal warning for not being devoted to the job (i.e., the business ethics class), a verbal warning for insubordination when I documented a disagreement with him concerning my project (which got the previous supervisor in trouble because I document everything), and a prep talk about doing the job his way or taking the highway. Since my mom died of breast cancer three months before and I was alreay making a career transition, I had no problem handing in my three-week notice to complete my project before leaving. My supervisor went on to sack the two lead testers that I trained since they documented everything as well. The company is now on the verge of bankruptcy and I'm a lot happier making more money working as a help desk specialist for only 40 hours a week. Who says ethics doesn't pay?

Re:Simple

[JanneM]

>> If you feel strongly enough about it, find another
>> job where such issues are not likely to arise.

> That's the crux of the matter. There are approximately one slew of jobs out there that won't be
> morally questionable, and you'll sleep better at night knowing that you're not enabling nasty
> behavior. It's a small victory but an important one.

If, that is, the project is indeed just about to begin - the OP seems to imply that is not the case. If it's the case that you've already spent months working on the project, and you're weeks from finishing, I would say you made your choice when you started your willing participation. You took on the job and now have a duty to see it through. This goes double if it, as the OP says, is a small company that will be hurt badly by a late defection.

If you're already deep in the project, finish the job as best you know how - you've already done most of the job, and your fellow workers depend on you to finish what you agreed to do. Then, _after_ the delivery, talk with your boss. Tell him that the latest job made you seriously uncomfortable, and that you are not prepared to do a similar job again. You saw it through because you'd promised to, but you will not repeat the experience.

One of two things will happen: he'll tell you that there's no such job again on the horizon, and he'll keep this in mind if he needs to assign people t o another such thing; or he'll say this is part of the business and you need to accept doing the job to continue working there.

Re:Simple

[BalkanBoy]

If you PayPal me $100 dollars right now, I will tell you (in an email dialogue) a different way of how you could've handled the issue differently and not only hold onto your last job at the game company, but actually switch to a different position in the same company, where you would've worked 40 hours a week, just as you do now.

Anything short of that, I congratulate you on your ascetic experience in ethics, little Buddha.

Here's a spoiler for you: before you can preach ethics, you have to master other things, like communication and language. They don't teach much of that in business ethics, do they? All they teach you there is how to apply some rules, in a black or white manner, without previously weighing in the risks of your actions properly, and without due self reflection before you open your mouth. Could it be that you were unduly influenced by your ethics class that swayed your judgment about the T-Shirt design contest? Was the logo a _straight rip_ (e.g. show me a URL with the image of both logos) or was it "look&feel" type of rip?

More to follow once you pay up.

Re:Simple

[testadicazzo]

Either you are OK with being a contributor to the work product that you find distasteful or not. You can quit, or you could do a wholly different task within the company (like move from developer to marketing) so that you don't 'free up' someone else to do the work. But otherwise, you might as well just do it yourself and see if you might be able to influence it to be less distasteful than originally planned.

Boy, I just want to say, and I suppose this is opinion, that there just isn't a less ethically sound job than marketing. Marketing is really the root of all evil. If all the marketers in the world commited mass suicide, the world would be a much better place.

I'm not exagerating my views here. What do marketers do? They convince people to want or need things that they otherwise don't want or need. It's one of the roots of the wasteful consumer culture that's consuming the planet and our souls. Thanks to the constant bombardment of advertising (in obvious and hidden forms) it takes tremendous amounts of effort not to get sucked into the "if I can just have that, or if I can just make that much more money... then I'll be happy". Wealth wealth above all else!

Not only that, but marketing is the fly in the free market theory ointment. Free market theory, which so many people in Slashdot like to comment on off-topic and ad nauseum, relies on the assumption of a well informed marketplace, where the market purchases the best products based on complete information. But marketing is exactly the opposite of informing your consumer. Marketing is the art of lying to the consumer, of illiciting a non rational emotional response from the consumer in order to override the consumers rational thought and purchase a certain product, regardless of pre-existing need, use, desire, or the existance of a better solution. Pick the first ad you see... how much real information is in there, and how much exploitation of human foibles? Marketing is one of the primary forces keeping us from evolving as a society.

Porn on the other hand helps deal with sexual frustration, is fun, and can (when done well) be a positive celebration of human sexuality. Really great porn can give you and your sexual partner(s) fun ideas. Ok, I agree, a good chunk of porn is kinda creepy, but the solution is to try to buy and make good fun porn. So if you want to make the world a better place, quit your marketing job and get into porn! Chant the mantra: "porn good, marketing bad. porn good, marketing bad... "

Marketing porn is also evil.

Re:Simple

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Marketing porn is also evil.

What's marketing porn? Is that like Bill Gates[1] stripping?

[1] former head of the largest marketing company in the world

Re:Simple

[__aaclcg7560]

If you PayPal me $100 dollars right now, I will tell you (in an email dialogue) a different way of how you could've handled the issue differently and not only hold onto your last job at the game company, but actually switch to a different position in the same company, where you would've worked 40 hours a week, just as you do now.

Why would I want to work for a company that was already heading into bankruptcy? I could've accept another position in the company by moving to a different state and then get canned six months when the company closed down the studios. A lot of QA testers got burned that way.

All they teach you there is how to apply some rules, in a black or white manner, without previously weighing in the risks of your actions properly, and without due self reflection before you open your mouth. Could it be that you were unduly influenced by your ethics class that swayed your judgment about the T-Shirt design contest? Was the logo a _straight rip_ (e.g. show me a URL with the image of both logos) or was it "look&feel" type of rip?

The business ethics class I took covered all the issues you mentioned and more. I been preparing for a career transition for three years (I worked at the company for six years), so I had thought long and hard on what I wanted with my career and the video game industry was not cutting it. My supervisor just gave me the motivation to do what I thought was right. As for the logo itself, I provided direct links to the Microsoft website of the logo that was used on the T-shirt and quoted the Microsoft XBox standards on logo usage. It was a clear violation that HR immediately dropped it.

Re:Simple

[BalkanBoy]

Ok.. those who have money to start a company solvent enough to pay you came up with that money once, and can probably come up with it again, even after foreclosing their business.

Can you guess what my next statement will be after you've mastered communication and language around other? Ready to pony up?

Read my sig, bitch.

Re:Simple

[clickclickdrone]

>only 40 hours a week
Must be some new definition of 'only'. That's a bad week for me.

Re:Simple

[BalkanBoy]

> If all the marketers in the world commited mass suicide, the world would be a much better place.

> I'm not exagerating my views here. What do marketers do? They convince people to want or need things that they otherwise don't want or need.

Yo bro - if I said "talk is cheap" right now. Will you agree or disagree with me?

If I said it in the thread of another Slashdot story on "256GB Geometrically Encoded Paper Storage Device" - would you agree or disagree there?

But what if you grew up believing that " 256GB Geometrically Encoded Paper Storage Device" is real without questioning it, and mom and dad told you so at age 6 and then I questioned that - what will you do then? Am I evil if I told you it isn't true?

Porn is evil because people like to fuck without condoms. And when we do that, we spread disease, and decimate society. Therefore, we web2.0 "tag" it as "evil and immoral" (oops, 6 billion people happened that way).

So, remind me again of why marketing people (or lawyers, let's go for the throat here, of all people who use language to make a living) are evil and should be crucified?

I can also paint you another story of them being evil, but I'll let that for someone else to follow up...

Moral dilemmas... why do you people bust your heads with this stuff? Just do what "feels" right, mmm-kay?

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm a lot happier making more money working as a help desk specialist for only 40 hours a week.

What happened to the two testers?

Re:Simple

[TropicalCoder]

Marketing is the art of ... illiciting a non rational emotional response from the consumer in order to override the consumers rational thought and purchase a certain product, regardless of pre-existing need, use, desire, or the existance of a better solution.

So you don't consider emotional needs as worthy of being served by the market place? Emotions are what make us human. Buying a product for no "rational" reason other than "you like it" or "you want it" IS rational, when you consider the complexity of the reality of being human. It's just that you are not buying that product for obvious reasons based on its functionality alone.

Consider branding, for example. The tremendous variety of products available today allow each and every one of us to express his own unique personality, something we have been doing since the dawn of time. There is a distinct human need for this. If a new product comes out that allows even better opportunity for self expression, but perhaps at the cost of less efficiency or reduced functionality, it still may be a rational decision to buy that product in light of the bigger picture of what our real needs are.

Free market theory ... relies on the assumption of a well informed marketplace, where the market purchases the best products based on complete information.

I don't believe that "your" free market theory would be very useful as it fails to take into account the full reality of human nature.

"if I can just have that, or if I can just make that much more money... then I'll be happy". Wealth wealth above all else!

...nothing we haven't heard a thousand times before. Of course you raise a valid point, but its the obvious one. I guess for me your theses is so lacking in originality that I wanted raise the other side by pointing out that issues are far more complex than you care to acknowledge.

There is an important lesson in this for technical people. We must never forget that in the end our work must serve real human beings, and that a technical specification alone can never describe the ultimate function of our work, which in the end must acknowledge and serve the full range and complexity of human needs to be successful.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

it's everyone else's fault, he's a saint, they're all assholes, and he wasnt fired, he quit. Aggrieved employee gives one sided explanation of his sacking. Film at 11.

Re:Simple

[__aaclcg7560]

Your sig indicates that you're a consultant. That would explain why you're asking for money up front and giving useless advice. :P

Re:Simple

[__aaclcg7560]

Previously, I was working 80 hours per week. Making the same amount of money for only 40 hours a week means I have a life and the time to enjoy it.

Re:Simple

[__aaclcg7560]

One tester got a job elsewhere in the industry and the other tester went on disability due to job stress.

Re:Simple

[__aaclcg7560]

I left with my head held high and had a pretty good going away party with all the senior testers. I did what my supervisor wanted me to do: take the highway. I have no regrets doing that.

Re:Simple

[chris_mahan]

>You took on the job and now have a duty to see it through. This goes double if it, as the OP says, is a small company that will be hurt badly by a late defection.

WTF? The employee has no obligation to do something he does not want to. Period.

The management of the company should have thought of that. That's the reason they are "management" and collect the big money.

If the project is hurt because of one developer leaving, then it's management's fault. As a matter of fact, anything that happens, good or bad, in a company, is management's fault.

So unless this guy is management (and by that I mean able to make binding decisions for the company) he has no responsibility whatsoever beyond doing the work while he gets paid.

I hope that clears up this whole thread/article.

Re:Simple

[lord sibn]

But it also misses an important point. I had a similar problem some years ago, when first charged with running a cash register. As one of my brothers (rightly) pointed out, that I had moral objections to some of the products we carried, that I am in fact *not* enabling the customer who chooses to buy them. You could make a good case that I was, but I don't believe so.

By completing the transaction and moving on, I have done my job. I have an ethical obligation to do that. The customers are responsible for their own moral health, and it is not my duty or business to regulate or even interfere, as long as they are not hurting anybody else. Furthermore, I cannot prevent them from buying such items, as they would just get them through another cashier or company. In this regard, the customer will get what the customer wants, and you are not in a position to mandate otherwise.

My recommendation to the submitter would be to express his discomfort to his boss (preferably about half way to completion), but to reaffirm his commitment, and absolutely do his level best at it. Whether he does the project or not, the customer will get what they paid for. The only decision after that to be made is who gets paid.

On the other hand, if I felt so strongly about a situation that I didn't feel I could supply the customer with what my employer promised them, then I would probably be looking for a new job, myself. I could not act as a representative of my company if its values were so vastly different than mine.

It all depends on what is important to the individual on a question like this.

Re:Simple

[NemosomeN]

Actually, seems obvious to me that his story is inverted. He didn't leave the company because he wanted to take the moral high road, rather he took the moral high road knowing he intended to leave, therefore avoiding any ill consequences for it. Had he wanted to keep his job, I think he would have toed the line just like everyone else.

Re:Simple

[JanneM]

WTF? The employee has no obligation to do something he does not want to. Period.

The OP was asking about the moral implications, not legal ones.

Legally he has whatever period is in his contract for terminating his employment, naturally. And legally, the company is probably free to can him the moment he refuses to do the job he's hired to.

But that was not what the OP was asking about. He was asking about what would be the moral thing to do. And from a moral (not legal) standpoint, finishing what you said you started, especially when a decision to bail will hurt third parties, is the moral choice.

Re:Simple

[Eivind Eklund]

Eivind.

Re:Simple

[davecb]

Simple, true, but hard (;-))

As it happens, there are an amazing number of bad jobs out there, and a moderate number of good ones. One often has to tell your boss that you're conflicted but won't lave hime in the lurch.

Then you can start a job-hunt for a good job, and on finding one, negotiate a reasonable notice period and hand-over.

-dave

Re:Simple

[tverbeek]

Morality isn't necessarily an outcome-defined question. Sometimes - such as when your contributions to the project can be easily replaced - the best you can do is to personally remove yourself from an project you find personally distasteful. If enough people share your moral judgment, that may successfully put a stop to it, but the inability to effect that outcome by yourself doesn't make your personal choice to not participate any less virtuous.

Re:Simple

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

but the inability to effect that outcome by yourself doesn't make your personal choice to not participate any less virtuous.

"Inability" is not the question here. He, as everyone else in a similar situation, does have the ability to quit his job. Thus the virtuousness is a function of his personal choice. The charity of a poor man is more virtuous than the same charity of a rich man.

It comes down to...

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes down to being able to pay the bills, or not have a guilty conciense. I was in a similar situation once, the company had me writing software that basically skewed the results, so that our service looked like the client got way more than they really did. Seeing as I had a wife, and two kids, I couldn't just up and quit.

However, I did spend a lot of time looking for another job, so I could get out of that situation as quickly as I could.

Morals versus Flash development?

[KNicolson]

I think by choosing the career of a Flash designer you have already proven yourself morally bankrupt. I bet you also produce "Best Viewed with Internet Explorer" sites.

PS: Links to the boobies plz!

Re:Morals versus Flash development?

[wesw02]

*bump for the link*

Re:Morals versus Flash development?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to 4chan

Well, for those of us who care about REAL morals

[QuantumG]

like, ya know, freedom and human rights and such, instead of "ooh, boobs!" We tend to deal with it by doing more good than harm, but in this industry it aint really possible to not also do harm (unless you wanna end up like RMS).

Sucks, but its so.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[Anonymous Coward]

Your grammatical constructus cause pain in my crainial. Ow the brainhurt.
Negative double unallowed bad.

It's easy, first take the money

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Then design the site such that it makes a mockery of what it purports to represent.

Behold: http://newbirth.org/

Re:It's easy, first take the money

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL! The flash intro is priceless.

Re:It's easy, first take the money

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Praise the Lord and pass the Keppra!

Re:It's easy, first take the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the link, now I have epilepsy.

Re:It's easy, first take the money

[springbox]

WTF? Is this a promotional site for a video game?!

Re:It's easy, first take the money

[James_Duncan8181]

Best argument for atheism evar.

Watch out for H-1Bs

[DrRevotron]

Be glad you still have a job in that type of position. What you're doing is something that an H-1B (Foreign-born worker) could do, probably for less than you. But anyway, you're probably not making much if all your job is is Flash development. So, frankly, you should be grateful that you're getting to stay in that line of work. :/ Not to say the pay sucks, but beggars can't be choosers, especially when you've got some major competition coming in from overseas (Let's thank the U.S. Congress for that.)

Re:Watch out for H-1Bs

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the free market, sunshine. Take it or leave it.

Re:Watch out for H-1Bs

[Garridan]

Depends. I was the lead of a small number of developers working full-time for a company, and my boss wanted me to some things that I disagreed with; primarily putting popup ads on the site, and spamming. I told him that I wouldn't do it. Once or twice, he said he'd pay some Russians to do it. I told him that if he did so, I'd never touch their code, so if he wanted it to continue working on the site, he'd have to regularly solicit their help. He asked me why I was being such a hardass, so I explained why I felt the way that I did about the spam/popups, and launched into a bit of a tirade about why outsourcing programming work was detrimental to the economy that his business depended on.

In the end, I convinced him that what he was asking me to do was dumb, and that outsourcing sucks in the long term. (I couldn't ply to morality, the man had none, but he'd listen to reason)

Re:Watch out for H-1Bs

[panaceaa]

The employment market for software developers is very tilted towards employees right now. This is especially true for Flash developers, who both have the online advertising boom and the advent of rich-client applications fueling demand for new workers. The article submitter in all likelyhood is not a "beggar", and likely has many opportunities available to him. So don't go on a tirade about H-1B workers, because software developers who know what they're doing are having no problems getting quality jobs.

Re:Watch out for H-1Bs

[siufish]

What's your job? Is that something that an "H-1B (Foreign-born worker)" could not do?

What?

[diskis]

I cannot possibly imagine what they want you to work on.
Apparently they are not breaking laws of any kind, so what really is the problem?
Is your morale really that much tighter than the rules imposed on you by one of the tightest legal systems in the world?

And exploitation? What?
All people involved in whatever you are doing, have made their own choise whether to participate or not. And they probably even get paid for it. Don't impose your values on everyone. If the rest is okay with what is happening, why can't you simply accept it?

Re:What?

[russ1337]

>>>"I cannot possibly imagine what they want you to work on.

But it does sound like he has access to copious amounts of softcore at work.... so what is his problem again?

Re:What?

[zoeblade]

Apparently they are not breaking laws of any kind, so what really is the problem? Is your morale really that much tighter than the rules imposed on you by one of the tightest legal systems in the world?

Wow, what a way to avoid answering an honest question... you know, it is possible to disagree with the law sometimes, as flawless as it might seem. Say, for argument's sake, you've been asked to work on a web site that praises the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for being so humane. Is it not possible someone may object to such an assignment? What would you tell them?

Re:What?

[freemywrld]

Great point there, zoeblade.

And now on to my advice to the questioner. A couple of years ago I accepted a job doing web work for a porn company. Now there are two mindsets that came crashing into conflict for me - that porn inherently is harmful to participants (namely, the women participants) and women in general (encouraging objectification, use as sexual objects, etc. etc.) versus the idea that those who get involved willingly and knowledgably accept and agree to what they are about to get paid for.
What did I do?

I did my job, and accepted that while I would certainly never choose to participate, at least all of the work that we produced was of (relatively) good taste, everyone was verified to be of legal age, and generally, everyone seemed to be having fun. So, I set aside my judgements and decided that everyone has a right to choose what they do in their life, what they consume, and what morals they uphold. I found that the work didn't bother me, and I never felt that my own morals where being compromised. Objectification is everywhere, in everything we do. If you can honestly say that you consume no product or service that exploits other humans in any way (sex appeal, sweatshops, whatever the case may be - exploitation comes in many forms), then maybe you can ride away from this project or your job on a high horse. Not to be harsh, but seriously, I really think you just need to relax a bit. The world is a crazy place, and some people are quite proud to bare their bodies for art, sex, or science.

Re:What?

[nacturation]

And exploitation? What? All people involved in whatever you are doing, have made their own choise whether to participate or not.This could be something like the paparazzi who follow around celebrities and intrude upon their lives, photographing and taking videos of their every moment not allowing them any semblance of privacy. Certainly not illegal (unfortunately) but those people all too often have not made their own choice about whether or not to participate. In my books, that qualifies as exploitation.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's either harmful to both the male and female actors, or it is harmful to neither. Any other conclusion is sexist.

Re:What?

[diskis]

I have to disagree with that. Celebrities and aspiring celebrities know about the loss of privacy. They know that someone will publish all kinds of crap on them. And yet they want to be famous knowing this downside.
And this all is mostly accepted by the public. If it wouldn't be, all the gossip-papers would not sell, as people usually don't buy stuff that clashes with their morales, and become bankrupt.

I personally want remain hidden from the public, so I make a choise: Don't get famous.
It won't happen accidentally, I would have to work really, really hard to become famous, if that is even possible for me.

A little point to support this: Every female celebrity knows that paparazzis would kill for pictures of her naughty bits. I never wear clothing that allows my schlong to accidentally fall out of my pants. Why do some female celebrities go out in miniskirts without panties? They are attention-whores, not victims.

Re:What?

[diskis]

Oh? It is possible to disagree?
I personally do not obey laws per se, but live by the rule to do WTF I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

That was my point, that laws are a tad too tight, and someone whose morales are tighter than too tight does in my opinion have a stick up his ass. I don't say that I'm more right than the "righteous" guy, but I do reserve the right to ridicule him.

And about the Guantanamo thigy. I think it is a obscene violation of human rights, and that the government who set it up have waived all claims of being fair, liberal or democratic. Pretty much like the concentration camps of WW2 minus the gas chambers.
Should not exist in a civilized world.

But, still I would personally accept such an assignment. I do not consider myself responsible of Guantanamo, and I can make a webpage praising it, or rather the design/layout. Writing a text claiming it is a humane place is pure lies, and thus clashes with the "do not hurt anybody"-thingy.

To someone refusing such an assignment, I would say that it's like polishing somebody else's turd, so STFU and do it. And add that if you can't do this, plese go stand in the corner and think about why you are not doing anything to get rid of guantanamo, if it's so repulsive and unacceptable that you can't even make pretty pictures around a text of it.

Christ on a stick.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not wish to actively support something I believe to be an exploitation of human beings.

Well, then. You just answered your own question, Clyde.

You believe it exploits. You don't want to support exploits. You're done.

Unless, of course, you want someone to tell you it isn't exploitation. Which I would probably do if you were my friend. Screw Jesus and Screw Andrea Dworkin, we all gotta eat somehow, not to mention get our plumbing cleaned out somehow.

So don't be such a hand-wringing Nellie. Do your job, bank your pay, shut your mouth, and keep a weather eye out for something better. That's what everyone does. All the time. Welcome to the NFL.

Re:Christ on a stick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Andrea Dworkin? Did anyone pay any attention to that educationally-subnormal misandrist? I wouldn't call her the diametric opposite of the Christian son-of-the-sky-fairy but she certainly was in need of psychiatric treatment.
I believe Christ was on two sticks, BTW...

I quit

[Anonymous Coward]

After a year of unemployment, I got a job at a firm a while ago whose main (but not only product) was a sort of distributed spamming system, where companies paid to arrange online competitions. End users got points and could win prizes by scoring well in the competition, but they got even more points by sending out invites and getting friends to click on links.

Even though I finally had a job, I felt miserable. Luckily, I got another job offer after a while, with 20% less pay but much more rewarding tasks. It is at a medical university, so now I feel I work for mankind instead of against it. It also helped that the first place had code that was eminently qualified to appear on The Daily WTF site.

Moo

[Chacham]

I do not wish to actively support something I believe to be an exploitation of human beings.

Unfortunately for the logic based sector of society, they lack basic skills in value judgements.

Value judgements have three outcomes (unlike logic's two), they are "greater than", "less than", and "equal to".

Assign a weight to you're self-appointed moral. Call that x. Now, assign a value to having a job. Call that y.

1) x > y
2) x < y
3) x = y

1) If x > y, quit. Pure and simple.
2) If x < y, deal with it. We can't have everything.
3) If x = y, keep the status quo. Don't accept a new job of this, but keep any current ones.

With practice these jusdgements become easier (and more refined), and so does assigning values. But, unlike logic, these are not objective facts agreed upon by all logical people, these are subjective values that change by the person. And rightly so.

Oh yeah, let me be the first to welcome your to the real world. It takes a little trying, but i think you'll like it here. You've made a good first step.

Ask Slashdot: I am a spineless wimp

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in a job that disagrees with my morals, yet I am so in fear of not having a job I can't quit. Oh please Slashbots, guide me. And by guide me, I mean please justify me keeping my job for me. I am too weak to do it myself.

Serioulsy - what the fuck is the problem here? You dance around a moral argument and try to weaken in hopes that people will convince you to stay? How about this: I work for a company that develops missile guidance systems. The one and true purpose of this guidence system is to kill people effectively. I am against killing people in all forms. So Slashdot, should I stay or should I quit?

Re:Ask Slashdot: I am a spineless wimp

[BalkanBoy]

I think you should visit playboy.com, subscribe, and relieve yourself of all that pent-up hostility from the moral dilemmas you're facing on a daily basis.

By the way, I just got my US citizenship this January, do you guys hire experienced software engineers with expert knowledge of C, C++, Java, some perl, some php and some ruby, and a lifetime of UNIX (or UNIX-clone) based development? :) I love my current job, we develop OCR software for a major entity in the U.S.A., and about the only thing cooler than that would probably be developing embedded real-time software for missile guidance. That'd top playboy.com in terms of excitement.

Re:Ask Slashdot: I am a spineless wimp

[Anonymous Coward]

In what universe do you expect to be given any security clearance? Surely not this one?

Re:Ask Slashdot: I am a spineless wimp

[BalkanBoy]

I don't get it - are you saying _naturalized_ U.S. citizens are not to be given security clearance? That's the first I hear of it, unless this is a recent policy change. I've been in this country since I was 16 years old.

Re:Ask Slashdot: I am a spineless wimp

[Anonymous Coward]

It's harder than you might think, although getting your citizenship is a big step. There's still a background check in there, and the fact that you weren't born here will unfortunately work against you. I do wish you luck if you go through one though. I've seen people fail background checks who were born here, and pass who weren't, but the odds aren't in your favor.

Re:Ask Slashdot: I am a spineless wimp

[Alioth]

That's stupid. It depends:

- where he's from
- what the background check turns up

If he's from a US allied country, and the background check doesn't turn up anything bad, he'll get a clearance just like any other US citizen who doesn't have something in their past that makes them look dodgy for clearance.

Re:Ask Slashdot: I am a spineless wimp

[Anonymous Coward]

So Slashdot, should I stay or should I quit?

Don't kid yourself AC; you can't quit Slashdot.

Re:Ask Slashdot: I am a spineless wimp

[Kagura]

Rather than killing innocent families in an effort to kill a small number of people our government says are bad, you are helping limit the casualties as much as possible through extremely accurate missiles. This means less explosives are required to effectively kill the bad guys(tm) as opposed to dumb bombs and dumb missiles. Make no mistake, our government will continue to try to kill the people it deems bad. The work you do goes towards lowering the threshold of acceptable collateral deaths, which is good for the residents of those nations we invade.

This is message is a little frank, and is as politically neutral as my subjective mind could make it. Make no mistake, you are saving lives that would otherwise needlessly be destroyed, and helping the image of your country a little at the same time through those lives you save.

Re:Ask Slashdot: I am a spineless wimp

[werewolf1031]

With spin control like that, you really, really ought to go into politics.

Or at least business PR.

If you don't like what you are doing

[twitter]

don't do it. When you find another job, take it and tell your former boss why you left.

How to handle moral delimmas?

[GFree]

Simple: have no morals.

Re:How to handle moral delimmas?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

I have morals: Very strict ones actually. For starters I find it very unethical that women between 16 and 30 cover up their breasts. Not to mention I have huge moral issues with the lack of nudity and explicit sex on TV. If the world doesn't change, We'll go to hell, I tell you! God created the human body, now admire His work. How do you think an artist would feel if you came in his workspace and put up blankets over his work to claim it's better that way?

Re:How to handle moral delimmas?

[1u3hr]

Not to mention I have huge moral issues with the lack of nudity and explicit sex on TV.

You don't have HBO?

Re:How to handle moral delimmas?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've opened my eyes! Of course it is only unethical for the pretty ones to cover up their breasts, since they're the ones made by God. The rest... well I don't want to offend anyone.

Oh oh oh I know this one!

[Jack9]

Quit ot write your assessment, including any objections you have or see others having. Ask to have it in writing and go do it.

Question yourself

[SillyPerson]

I'm approaching 40, so I guess I can enter wise-old-man-mode:

Due to a traumatic event I witnessed as a child, I promised myself always to follow my moral principles. This turned out to be a surprisingly good strategy in all situations of my life. One thing however is absolutely essential: that you question those moral principles. They might be wrong. Some of them are wrong. Find them, weed them out.

Re:Question yourself

[The One and Only]

Can I question the principle of questioning my moral principles?

Re:Question yourself

[TheWanderingHermit]

I'm approaching 40, so I guess I can enter wise-old-man-mode

Oh, man. Thanks. I haven't had a laugh that good in weeks.

Re:Question yourself

[mwvdlee]

I'm approaching 40, so I guess I can enter wise-old-man-mode:Well, I'm approaching 60, so I guess I'm a wiser-older-man. (still have 30 years to get there, though).

Re:Question yourself

[BalkanBoy]

You should not only do that, but do that recursively until your head blows up. Just kidding :). There's finiteness in everything. Having principles is fine. Having misguided principles that will bury you because you somehow come to believe those principles are infallible, is not good. That's when you apply the function of questioning your principles, regardless of how entrenched up your a$$ they were, mmkay?

Re:Question yourself

[mattwarden]

One thing however is absolutely essential: that you question those moral principles. They might be wrong. Some of them are wrong. Find them, weed them out.

-1, Redundant! We already have plenty of comments telling him to stop developing Flash.

Re:Question yourself

[Oersoep]

Then you arn't wise anymore. You're just old.

Talk to your boss?

[Blackknight]

Seriously, stop being such a pansy and see if there's another project you can do. If the boss says no then suck it up and do what you're paid to do. Unless you own the company you don't get to pick and choose what assignments you get.

To borrow from Clerks...

[Anonymous Coward]

RANDAL
A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.

DANTE
Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.

RANDAL
Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.

DANTE
All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?

RANDAL
All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife
and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.

Um so yeah, you can choose to do or not do a project...based on personal politics. Especially if it involves working for the Empire.

Your Ideas

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Your ideas intrigue me, sir and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Oh for Pete's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should wonder why your moral dilemmas center around the PG-13 content of a website, when there are perfectly good defense contractors out there for you to be hired by that could really give you some gray areas to operate in.

"Wah wah wah, I don't want to develop for a website that does things I don't like." Quit. Don't want to quit? Man it up. Why would you ask us to make your moral decisions for you? You already have some idea what you want to do, and don't really care what we think, right? That is unless you're just some wanker performing a survey.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[Arker]

Indeed, the submitter is incredibly vague about just what the heck it is he finds objectionable about the assignment, which leads me to suspect some idiot puritan nonsense instead of a real moral issue.

As an aside, "ending up like RMS" would hardly be anything to be ashamed of. The world would be a lot better off if more of us had the courage to take his route.

Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I realize it's probably against your religion to read these two philosophers, but I encourage you to sneak a peek while your God isn't paying attention.

You can't live by axioms alone. Thou shalt not bear false witness, sayeth God. But would you then turn Anne Frank over to the authorities when the Gestapo comes knocking? Thou shalt keep the Sabbath. A hungry baby knows nothing of why you won't buy milk on Saturday.

Sartre gets to the heart of the axiom problem. There are simply too many variables to declare some certain action (a categorical imperative) to be the Right Thing. You eventually get to the point where you are now, confused about how to proceed.

Maybe there isn't anything inherently good or evil. That's Nietzche's point. Blessed are the meek, we hear. But aren't they simply damned in this lifetime? Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness. To what end? Strength, pride, and a burning desire to do something are the hallmarks of Nietzche's 'Superman'.

You sit here twiddling your thumbs hoping that someone will bust down your morals and help you see the light. That's sadly pathetic. If you don't want to do the job because you find it disagreeable, then don't do it. If you think you can live with yourself and your misgivings, then do it. Asking others for help in this situation only makes us culpable when you end up violating your own morals and feel guilty about it. I'm not sure we want to be your serpent to your Eve.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

Just because many common axioms are flawed doesn't mean they all are.

'Don't murder' works pretty well.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BalkanBoy]

"Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." - Joseph Stalin

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

"Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." - Joseph Stalin -- 'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels

Wonderful axioms if you wish to emulate sociopaths.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You're putting a value weight on 'kill' when you use the word murder. Is it murder to lie in wait for a burglar and kill him when he enters your home? How about if you set up a trap to electrocute him when he comes in through the vents?

Is it murder to kill an enemy in battle? What if he is unarmed? What if he is unaware of you? How does the fact that you are both soldiers change the fact that you are killing him pre-meditatively? How is that different from murder?

In samurai culture, it was tradition that one samurai would cut the head off of another samurai in order to ease the sufferring of the dying person. Is that different from pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo? Or is it different from what Kevorkian was doing with his patients?

I'm not asking this because I think that killing is bad or am trying to find some way to weasel out of addressing your point. The simple use of the word 'murder' connotates many things that are not so simply or universally understood. You would have a point if you had said "Don't kill", leaving out any value judgements. However that, in itself, is problematic for all the reasons I mentioned above.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BalkanBoy]

You know, it all starts with a noble idea.... Stalin was probably a very noble man with some very cool ideas... and I understand your concern about balance, not turning into a sociopath... but it ain't that easy walking in the middle. So unless you're mother Theresa or something, I can't see what your problem is with my quote.

I understand morality from just about every angle imaginable. Notice, I'm honest,and I only say I _understand_ rather than believe in it. I actually doubt you believe in morality too, and it's easy to look good by poking holes in my argument. But I didn't really want to look good. All I wanted is to save this poor sap's job, and possibly prevent him from making future moral-based decisions until he is in a position to do so.

How's this one for a quote - "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Spin it against me please.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BalkanBoy]

> Is it murder to lie in wait for a burglar and kill him when he enters your home?

No. But you just re-framed the argument. And I don't think most people here think in relatives but in absolutes when they hear "morality" ejected out in the cold.

Just like when they hear "Britney Spears", all they think is blonde dumb bimbo, "not-a-virgin" fraudster, stupid hick - but when they hear "Britney Spears dumps K-Fed", they think "blonde angel", "clever girl", or when they hear "Britney Spears pre-empts K-Fed by giving away 90 minute (or 4 hours, whicheve) porn tapes for free", now they even think "KILLER MOVE, BUSINESS WOMAN, etc etc".

Shit - what happened to blonde bimbo and stupid hick? :)

Now, anyone else want to read some Nietszche or Sartre for me? :)

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

You know, it all starts with a noble idea.... Stalin was probably a very noble man with some very cool ideas

Not at all. He pursued flawed axioms to their inevitable conclusions. A good illustration of why it's so important to examine any proposed axiom thoroughly.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BadAnalogyGuy]

That isn't what I did at all. By using a word that is already loaded (murder), the debate cannot be made at all.

His axiom basically boils down to "Don't do immoral things". No kidding! I shouldn't do immoral things? Thanks for the heads up.

But it calls into question what 'immoral' means and what actions are immoral. Murder is an immoral form of killing, but how can we decide what types of killing are moral and what types are immoral? Kant can't help us here.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

You're absolutely correct. 'Don't murder' isn't a perfect axiom, but it's a good counterexample to the original argument. A better axiom would be more general, and allow 'don't murder' - along with a usable definition of murder as opposed to merely kill - to follow from implication.

'Do not initiate force' seems to fit that bill rather well. It's a basic principle understood across cultures, across social strata, by children, adults, and the aged. In simple terms, don't start shit.

From that axiom your questions may be answered with a fair degree of certainty. There's always room for different interpretations of corner cases, but it settles the majority very easily when applied in good faith.

A burglar has initiated force, and so this axiom does not prohibit killing him. That doesn't necessarily mean that there may not be other reasons not to do so, and it doesn't mean you can't construct a corner case where you can define someone as a burglar without them initiating force.

Scenarios involving war and soldiers are subject to a number of complications, and the soldiers on both sides can often claim that force was initiated against them. Wars are evil things, and certainly anyone that values humanity should make every effort to avoid them - but the non coërcion principle does not prohibit a soldier from killing an armed enemy on the battlefield - rather it urges him to avoid being put in that situation, and condemns the political leaders who so love to put them there.

Suicide is not an initiation of force, assisted or not. Therefore nonaggression does not prohibit it, though again there may be other reasons to refrain from it. I would personally classify kevorkian and the samurai together, but separate entirely from Schiavo, who according to all medical testimony was already dead and simply being artificially animated and preserved, but if you disbelieve that medical data as some do then you would doubtless have a different view as a result...

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Wars are evil things

With the following exceptions of the American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars Trilogy.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BalkanBoy]

You know, I totally dig libertarianism, which obviously you are (or else you wouldn't be pointing to antiwar.com as your freakin' home page), but the problem is, it doesn't work. Just like communism will never work. I think pure libertarianism is as bad as communism actually, but then again, that's just my view. It's kind of like saying, let's all rely on people's good will and conscicentiousness that they will never infringe on the freedom of others, and that we can always talk someone into action....

Well, it doesn't work like that. Your inflated ego won't let you see my point of view, therefore, by virtually talking to you and providing arguments, regardless of how logical they are and backed by educated opinions from others, I'm betting I still won't be able to convince you into my point of view. That's because however you arrived to the point of having 'antiwar.com' as your home page, has probably indoctrinated you enough to think that every republican in congress is a rotten swine and wants to bury America, and now the Democrats are probably out to sell us out too, right? Wrong.

From this keyboard, I am the next Chinese tzar. From up there, you only get to fuck up once, and people crucify you mercilessley.

So... master Yoda of the Liberal species... unless you have a way of enforcing libertarian policies on 300 million people... or better yet, I'll make that 6 billion people, and you can bring them all to understand concepts of economics, free will, psychology, pragmatism, enlightement, verbal onanisms, immortal ideologies, pure thoughts, fragile sensibilities, better doctrines, philosophy, nirvana, etc etc etc - please, lay off the keyboard.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[dasunt]

You can't live by axioms alone. Thou shalt not bear false witness, sayeth God. But would you then turn Anne Frank over to the authorities when the Gestapo comes knocking? Thou shalt keep the Sabbath. A hungry baby knows nothing of why you won't buy milk on Saturday.

Sartre gets to the heart of the axiom problem. There are simply too many variables to declare some certain action (a categorical imperative) to be the Right Thing. You eventually get to the point where you are now, confused about how to proceed.

It sounds like you are assuming that not turning over Anne Frank to the Gestapo is the Right Thing, even if it means breaking a religious commandment. It sounds like you are also assuming that feeding a hungry baby is the Right Thing, even if it assumes breaking another religious commandment.

Now, personally, I wouldn't turn people over to the Gestapo, and I'd feed a starving baby, but that's my personal philosophy. My morals are based on my experience and what world I want to live in. I don't want to be dragged out of my house by the secret police for who I am, therefore, in my personal philosophy, I consider ratting out your neighbors based on race to be a bad thing. But I'll admit that my philosophy can be considered extremely self-serving.

But perhaps you can live by simple, unbreakable commandments. And perhaps that is the Right Thing to do, and it leads to Goodness. I don't agree, but 'Right Thing' and 'Good' tend to be rather subjective when it comes to definitions.

PS: Who are you replying to? You mention God, but I see no parent poster mentioning God or religion...

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BalkanBoy]

In case you missed it, I was in violent agreement with you and I explained why your point of view was as correct as the opposing one, from different perspectives, in different contexts.

It is precisely that "meaning" I was talking about. The meaning is assigned in context, not out of context. And it is assigned by you. And you as different in the way you assign meaning than the 6 billion others walking the planet, as you are physiologically identical to all other 6 billion people.

Dig it?

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

You know, I totally dig libertarianism,

Glad to hear it.

but the problem is, it doesn't work.

I think you've got that backwards - it's restrictivism that doesn't work.

Think about it. The least restricted areas are always the most productive, whether by area we're talking about a neighborhood, a country, or an industrial sector. The polities that most thouroughly purge libertarian principles - the soviet union being a prominent example - collapse under their own inability to work.

It's kind of like saying, let's all rely on people's good will and conscicentiousness that they will never infringe on the freedom of others, and that we can always talk someone into action....

Not at all. That's so frightfully far from libertarianism I must say it sounds like you've confused it with it's polar opposite.

Well, it doesn't work like that. Your inflated ego won't let you see my point of view,

Oh, it all makes sense now. Shoo troll.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I did miss it. I took the reframing comment as a criticism rather than a acknowledgement. Nuance is a hard thing to convey, and much harder to catch.

Dug.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You do see, then. What I'm saying is that the decision to take the job or shove it depends on Dwight's morality. And what a sad morality it is that it is so fungible as to be swayed by the opinions of the Slashdot crowd.

We each have our own morality. BalkanBoy mentioned this in another post in this thread. When we make a decision to live by that morality, that's great, even if the results are not great. But to turn over that decision to others is to make them complicit in whatever harm or guilt comes later. That's not very nice, no matter what your personal morality is.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[BalkanBoy]

No shit. You should see me when I use smileys inappropriately in hopes of others understanding me better. Then I screw up the most. Unless it's such a damn common cliche to _know_ that 8 out of 10 people will consider it funny, don't use a smiley.

Your misunderstanding of me is a prime example of why one should not live (or die) strictly by their convictions/beliefs. You get bent over and grab your ankles one too many times that way.

I should know, I been there.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Chacham]

You can't live by axioms alone.

Yes you can. They just need to be thought out, figured out where applicable, and conflicting axioms must each be known in their place.

Thou shalt not bear false witness, sayeth God. But would you then turn Anne Frank over to the authorities when the Gestapo comes knocking? Thou shalt keep the Sabbath. A hungry baby knows nothing of why you won't buy milk on Saturday.

There's another moral about keeping life, which in general is considered to have more importance then other axioms, thus, if just about any other moral conflicts with it, keeping life takes precedence.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[mattwarden]

This is seriously the most insightful comment I've ever read on Slashdot (although, perhaps that is not saying a whole lot). I can't mod your comment because I've participated in this discussion, so I wanted to at least give you kudos through a reply. It is not easy to read between the lines like you did and see what he is really asking for here, which is not advice, but rather an distribution of culpability, as you point out.

You are right: the situation is clear-cut. The OP tries to make it sound muddy, but it is not. He has identified the pros and cons. The con is his personal cognitive dissonance and how he will have to deal with resolving it. This is something internally punishing and not something outsiders can measure.

Very insightful comment, and I think you are spot-on.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[dmatos]

Clarification:

The original, pre-cgi, Han-shot-first Star Wars Trilogy.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[emil10001]

I realize it's probably against your religion to read these two philosophers, but I encourage you to sneak a peek while your God isn't paying attention.

There are simply too many variables to declare some certain action (a categorical imperative) to be the Right Thing. You eventually get to the point where you are now, confused about how to proceed.

At what point in the OP's explanation of the situation did he suggest that he was religious? Having read a good deal of both of those philosophers, they both tend to suggest that you create your own set of values and morals to live by, and that you should give them some serious thought. The OP is not asking us about the validity of his morals, but some guidance in a particular situation. Also, both of those philosophers would note that as there is rarely a right and a wrong way, and while still making the decision for yourself, gathering other's views may be insightful.

That said, I could fairly easily see the view that sexist materials may be morally objectionable to an atheist, who has given some serious thought to their set of values. If you feel that someone is being exploited, then you may have a moral issue with that. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with any of this, just that I think that you may be oversimplifying the OP's values, boiling them down to, 'God says it's bad, so I guess it's bad.'

Also, both Nietzsche and Sartre put a lot of emphasis on moral responsibility. So, isn't the OP doing the responsible thing here in asking for other's opinions of the situation?

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Anonymous Coward]

That's so frightfully far from libertarianism I must say it sounds like you've confused it with it's polar opposite.

Well, it's one (extreme) view of libertarianism: anarcho-capitalism. The idea that money will solve all problems and law and government will no longer be needed. The only problem is its reliance on capitalism which in turn relies on rationality when irrationality is truly the hallmark of humanity.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[spun]

Libertarianism is flawed in several major ways. First, the free market isn't free. Even Adam Smith knew that. Read The Wealth of Nations and you will see that the founder of modern capitalism knew that free markets needed regulation to stay free. The free market has three major failure modes: Natural monopoly, where the marginal cost of entry into a market is so great it precludes competition; imbalance of information, where one party knows more about the value of a transaction than the other, causing inefficient pricing; and externalities where the true cost or benefit of a transaction is not covered in the market price.

Without regulation, smart players will use these modes of failure to game the free market system and gain unfair advantage. This advantage then snowballs, giving these unscurpulous players even more power with which to game the system. Regulation addresses these areas where the free market would fail if kept strictly free.

The second area where libertarianism fails is in the ownership of natural resources. One can only fairly own what one has worked on, yet in order to work land one must own it. People unfairly fence off land and then work it, using their work to justify the fencing off which occured before the work. Anytime you take a natural resource, you are initiating force against the rest of the world who could have shared in the benefits of that resource before you took it for yourself.Don't worry about the false "Tragedy of the Commons" either. Any managed resource is safe from that tragedy, whether it is privately or publicly managed.

Finally, the end result of Libertarianism is Feudalism or slavery. When all the resources of the world are owned, any non-owners must be slaves to any owners just to survive. And under Libertarianism, this situation is gauranteed to occur. The more money and resources one has, the easier it is to game the system and acquire yet more money and resources. There are no checks and balances to keep this accumulation from happening.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't live by axioms alone.

Yes you can. They just need to be thought out, figured out where applicable, and conflicting axioms must each be known in their place.

No, thinking them out doesn't help. They need to be simmered over a low heat for a long time in order to break down their fibrous shells. Otherwise you won't get any nutrients from them and you will need something else, like vitamin supplements. No, if you want to live by axioms alone, you will need to cook them properly.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[CptPicard]

You're making the Nietzschean assumption that the he indeed is an übermensch who arbitrarily sets one's own values -- essentially does what one pleases and is proud of it. He apparently does not believe that all morality is completely relative to the individual, and wishes some guidance as to how to apply some moral principles and/or logic to come to some more objective conclusion. Sure, he is very light on details and it is therefore really difficult to help resolve this, but just because strict axioms tend to have counter-examples, it doesn't mean that there were not some measure of objective truth to the world, and that we couldn't seek to gain understanding through discussion...

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

First, the free market isn't free.

No, by definition, the free market is free. But truly free markets are, indeed, rather rare. In practical terms they aren't black or white, but some shade of grey. Nonetheless, it's clear that the freer they are the better they perform in terms of serving the general good, and the more unfree they are the less well they do at that.

Natural monopoly, where the marginal cost of entry into a market is so great it precludes competition

True natural monopolies are exceptionally rare, and tend to be mooted by advancing technology rather quickly. Artificial monopolies, however, are common and can survive indefinitely.

imbalance of information, where one party knows more about the value of a transaction than the other, causing inefficient pricing

The problem with this argument is that, while there's some truth to it, all alternatives to the free market suffer from the same problem, in greater intensity. In fact, the key to the efficiency of free markets is this very issue - while they don't perfectly solve the problem, no known system can. Command economies do far worse at this - resulting eventually in starvation and economic collapse wherever implemented.

externalities where the true cost or benefit of a transaction is not covered in the market price.

Certainly a real problem, but in no way unique to free markets - and again, in fact, a problem they deal with far better than any known alternative.

Don't worry about the false "Tragedy of the Commons" either. Any managed resource is safe from that tragedy, whether it is privately or publicly managed.

I'm sorry, if you believe that you're obviously badly out of touch with reality. Nearly every 'managed' resource around has fallen victim to some variation of the tragedy of the commons, and until and unless people evolve into a totally different sort of creature, that isn't going to change. The exceptions that can be found involve small, tightly knit groups with strong social cohesion, generally including blood bonds, and that simply doesn't scale much past the size of a hunting band.

Finally, the end result of Libertarianism is Feudalism or slavery. When all the resources of the world are owned, any non-owners must be slaves to any owners just to survive.

Actually, you've got this entirely reversed. The corporate feudalism we are facing is the result of repudiating libertarian principles. Libertarianism does not allow for any 'non-owners' - it is fundamentally based on self ownership. The situation you are talking about is the result of the use of state power to unjustly enrich the politically connected - exactly the condition that negates a free market.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Johnny5000]

Think about it. The least restricted areas are always the most productive, whether by area we're talking about a neighborhood, a country, or an industrial sector. The polities that most thoroughly purge libertarian principles - the soviet union being a prominent example - collapse under their own inability to work.

Check the production figures on the Soviet Union in the 50s and 60s.
They were outproducing the US. Sustainable? Apparently not. But for short-term
ramping-up production, Soviet-style communism can't be beat.

Of course, industrial production isn't necessarily the proper measure of a society, but you can't claim that "the least restricted areas are always the most productive."
That's just not true.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[spun]

Freedom is a funny concept. You can't have freedom without giving up some other freedom. Freedom isn't free, and not just in the sense that it takes effort. Want to be free from violence? You need to give up violence. Want to be free to own property? You must give up your freedom to go wherever you want. Want a free market? You have to give up the idea that you can make any transction you want to.

Roads are a natural monopoly. So are sewers, water mains, and electricit delivered through wires. Sure, the free markets may come up with replacements to those like they came up with railroads as a replacement for the natural monopoly of canals. But those canals were a monopoly for centuries. There are plenty of natural monopolies and they tend to last a long time, as anyone who has one can use the power and money that come with it to squash innovation that would threaten them.

I don't think you understand what imbalance of information is about. The most famous paper on the subject is titled "The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism" and it basically states that used cars can not receive a fair price in the free market because buyers must assume the seller is lying about the quality, and they must therefore bid less than they think the car is worth. This drives the sellers of higher quality used cars out of the market excacerbating the problem. Certainly any system can suffer from an imbalance of information, but this particular problem is unique to the free market.

How do free markets deal with externalities at all? This statement illustrates the crux of your argument, which to me looks a lot like "I don't want to believe what you say, so I'm just going to contradict it without any sort of evidence." Again, how can the free market possibly deal with externalities? Goods or bads. How does the free market fairly compensate the provider of public education when said education benefits society as a whole more than the individual? How does it deal with the public bad of polution? Real world examples, please. I already know that everything just works perfectly in Libertopia, I've heard that from libertarians for over a decade, but I'd like some actual examples, not how it should work if only we all converted to libertarianism.

To say that all systems are effected by externalities just shows that you don't understand the concept. It is a market based concept. An externality is some good or bad effect whose benefit or cost is not covered in a particular market transaction. The definition of externality is based on market transactions. You can certainly use the word however you like, but then you aren't speaking the same language as everyone else and you aren't saying anything useful.

The fact is that more resources have been squandered by private owners than collective management. Private owners can squander a resource, take the profit, and use it to buy up another resource to squander. Collectives can't do the same thing. You claim that collective ownership and management of resources doesn't work. Examples? I can show you plenty of cooperatives and collectives in the US and abroad that prove you wrong. Look up the Mondragon Collective for a start.

If all I own is myself, and someone owns all the land that I could use to provide sustenance, am I free or a slave? Again, you just state things without explaining the specifics. It is as if you don't understand the implications of your ideology and are just parroting back a party line without even comprehending it. How, specifically, does the fact that I own myself preclude someone owning all the resources in the world and demanding that I do whatever they say in order to live?

How does your system prevent the accumulation of money and power, given that the more you have, the easier it is to get? How is the use of private power such as the power to keep people off your land any different than state power? You know, I can claim that kicking you

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

The problem with the soviet model in terms of productivity wasn't first generation raw industrial output, as you rightly point out. But in the long term it was incapable of efficiency, because of the calculation problem. Without a market, and barring an omniscient planner, there's simply no way to know how much of what should be produced. In the long run, this means that initial productivity winds up being used in overwhelmingly wasteful ways. You're right, early in it's history the soviet union was an economic powerhouse - but the economic system doomed it form the start to collapse.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

It's true that the word 'freedom' has multiple sometimes contradictory usage in loose speech, but I believe I was being reasonably clear as to exactly what I'm talking about - political freedom, freedom from aggression.

Like the GPL, any legal system that sets out to promote freedom from aggression must set rules that can be described as limiting some other form of freedom - as the GPL prohibits taking away other people's rights, so must a legal system that aims at political freedom prohibit aggression.

Your examples of natural monopolies are all incorrect. Roads are not a natural monopoly - it's quite possible, and indeed common, to have many alternate routes between any given endpoints. The pseudo-monopolistic character of the current road system in the US (and other places) is a state creation as well. The use of tax money and 'eminent domain' seizures, among other things, not only created what looks like a natural monopoly there, it's also closed off the development of alternative transportation possibilities that otherwise would be competing in the same market as well. Sewers? Again, not a natural monopoly at all. It's a monopoly created by a regulatory regime, by use of eminent domain, by the prohibition of competition by state power. Every example you mention is similar.

The Market for Lemons isn't a bad paper per se, but the conclusions you seem to be drawing from it are certainly flawed. Reducing the freedom in a market makes it less, not more, able to deal with uncertain information, and your assertion that the problem is unique to a free market makes no sense really. In reality, there is no 'free market' per se, there are many markets, with varying degrees of freedom. This misunderstanding seems likely to explain several of your statements that don't seem to make any sense to me. You seem to be setting up some kind of platonic ideal of a 'free market,' arguing that it isn't perfect, and then jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that some un-named alternative system must therefore be better. In reality, no system is perfect, but the freer a market is, the better it serves the general good, while the more unfree a market is, the more it unjustly enriches those who are politically connected at the expense of the general good.

How do free markets deal with externalities at all?

I don't believe I actually said that they do, exactly, and if I did then I spoke sloppily. It would probably be more accurate to say that a system for dealing with externalities is one of the things that makes a free market possible - or that to the extent that externalities are not dealt with, the markets affected are correspondingly deficient in freedom.

. How does the free market fairly compensate the provider of public education when said education benefits society as a whole more than the individual?

I wouldn't agree that public education benefits society at all - to the contrary, it has harmed society greatly by driving a far better system out of the market. Of course, the judgement of superiority depends on point of view. The public education system is, obviously, superior from the point of view of the 'elites' that it serves and at whose behest it was instituted, but like any other unfree market, it serves those who are politically connected at the expense of the general good. And I would certainly argue that the interest of 'society' is more accurately identified with that general good, than with the the particular good of the politically connected.

How does it deal with the public bad of polution?

Again, you have this reversed, the market doesn't deal with externalities, the market depends on dealing with externalities. In this case, one way to do that would be the common law tort law system. Other systems are certainly possible as well - but that's the one I'm most familiar with as it's part of my cultural heritage. Strict liability tort would have pre

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[spun]

I say a free market needs regulation in order to be free, you say a free market needs some way to deal with externalities to be free. So cool, we agree! A free market needs regulation.

You try to dismiss natural monopolies, which is a common tactic amongst libertarian debaters. However, you don't present a strong argument. The bit about roads is particularly weak. Although you may have more than one route between two endpoints, at each of those endpoints there is only one choice. Unless you live on a corner, I suppose. The real definition of a natural monopoly has to do with the marginal cost of entry into a market, wikipedia has a good intro but I'm rather beginning to suspect you aren't so uneducated in economics as to need that. Sorry if I came across as condescending, but most libertarians I've debated have learned all they know of economics from places like the Mises Institute and therefore need a primer on what is considered mainstream economics.

The fact is, the second road, sewer or electric line to a building is simply not going to get made because total social cost of having two or more competing instances of these things is higher than if there were only one. Please read the wikipedia article if you still do not understand how these things are natural monopolies or how cases of natural monopoly are not efficiently handled by market forces.

As for imbalance of information, it is why we have things like truth in advertising laws, which are regulatory in nature. In an ideal libertarian world, from what I have seen, cases such as mislabelling of products would be handled by legal means, if the victim had the resources to pay and otherwise not at all. There is no room for any protective legislation in a libertarian ideal, and no access to justice except for the rich.

I realize I should have said "education" and not "public education" after reading your reply. The market can not fairly compensate any providers of education for their services, because much of the value of an educated populace accrues to the society as a whole. Would you rather live in a well educated or poorly educated society? Would you fork over some money to a seller of education for educating others in order to rectify this imbalance?

I need to wrap this up as I have to go pick up my wife from work, but I will leave you with this thought. You and I are both anarchists. We both abhor the use of force or coercion in political and economic systems. We both, for the most part, dislike the very idea of a state. The thing we differ on, really, is property. Libertarians are more properly "Propertarians" or protectors of property rights. I see property as theft. All taking of property precedes work on that property and is thus not justified by any first principles. Fencing off land is initiation of force, which is just as bad when an individual does it as when a state does.

I also happen to think that the free market needs a little help, and that in three specific areas needs to be protected from exploitation by the power hungry. It is no magic system that is impervious to being exploited. One just needs to focus on where it fails and regulate only in those areas.

Of course, one needs to regulate without using force, and one needs to figure out a way to keep ones regulating from itself being exploited. I'm still working on that... ;)

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

So cool, we agree! A free market needs regulation.

Well, I'm not so sure we agree. "Regulation" is normally interpreted in a way that would make that statement definitely not something I would agree with. I would say that a free market requires some mechanism of rights enforcement as a prerequisite, or to put it more simply, without freedom there is no free market.

Incidentally, this would seem to contradict most anarcho-capitalist doctrine, since there is a conceptual difficulty there - how do you have a free market for rights protection when you must have rights protection before the market can be free?

I don't think that's as a big a problem as some do, however, simply because, although our language forces us to speak of these things in a somewhat absolute fashion, in fact the reality is one of a continuum of more and less free structures rather than a binary condition. Completely unfree systems are just as mythical as completely free ones - so any system begins with some small amount of freedom which can be leveraged.

But I digress...

The real definition of a natural monopoly has to do with the marginal cost of entry into a market

And that's exactly my point. Regulation tends to raise, not lower, the cost of entry into markets. Expecting regulation to mitigate a natural tendency toward monopolisation is therefore entirely illogical - as well as contrary to history. The freer a market is, the more closely the cost of entry approximates the natural cost of entry - and making a market unfree will predictably lead to higher, not lower, costs of entry. Remember, don't let the mythical perfect become the enemy of the attainable good.

In an ideal libertarian world, from what I have seen, cases such as mislabelling of products would be handled by legal means, if the victim had the resources to pay and otherwise not at all.

Which is obviously an imperfect solution. However, you're stating that as if it automatically suffices to dismiss it. It does not. As imperfect as the solution is, it may still be the best possible solution. Particularly when you consider that in a relatively more libertarian system, the cost of rights enforcement would be lower (and drastically so,) and the resources of the victim relatively more. You're also failing to anticipate the possibility that these claims themselves would be fungible, so a victim somehow without the resources to press her claim could sell the claim immediately to someone else for prosecution. This seems a rather odd oversight, considering that even in our current system something very similar happens, with litigators who work on a contingency basis.

The market can not fairly compensate any providers of education for their services, because much of the value of an educated populace accrues to the society as a whole.

While this is true, again, you fail to articulate how any possible system could do better, or how this goes beyond being a purely conceptual flaw and becomes a practical concern. As long as people have sufficient motivation to value and pursue education, it doesn't really matter so much that there are free riders who receive secondary benefits without paying.

So far as property, I don't have any problem in seeing some truth to 'property is theft' - for some definitions of property.

Proudhon wrote not only that property is theft but also that property is impossible and even property is the foundation of liberty. This makes sense only when you realise that each statement uses a different meaning for the word property. "Property" that accrues from coërcion is theft indeed. Property that properly arises from self-ownership is the foundation of liberty, however.

To the extent a market is free, it produces the latter sort of property, and to the extent a market is unfree, it concerns itself with the application of the

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[spun]

Freedom is something that must be agreed upon and enforced by the people. One man's freedom is another man's burden. I, for instance, can see no justification for the taking of private real property, and in fact consider it an infringement on my rights for someone else to unilaterally fence off a piece of property that I could have used and call it their own. It's limiting my freedom, and what do I get out of it? I get nothing from the deal unless I am also a property owner (and saying "We all own ourselves" is just pointless. What good is owning yourself if someone else owns all the means of survival?)

This is what Proudhon meant by "Property is theft." One must mingle one's effort with something to call it one's own, but one must own property before one can legitimately work it. I can see no rational justification for owning natural resources. When Proudhon said "Property is impossible" he meant it is impossible to come up with a moral justification for it, but you are right that he said that it is also the basis of liberty, in that unless one owns the means of survival, one can not be free.

But now I digress. Back to natural monopolies. You don't get the concept at all. The idea is that there are some things where it is just plain inefficient to have more than one seller or producer or product. What is the utility of having multiple competing roads, necessarily stacked one on top of the other because where else would you put them, leading from all possible points to all destinations? Same goes for sewers, water, end electric lines. It is just more efficient to have one supplier. Therefore it is not efficient to have a market, and that one supplier can not be regulated by market forces so they must be regulated by external means.

Are you against the idea of mandatory labelling? Truth in advertising? Personally, I see those as examples of agression and I see no moral problem with pre-empting things like that through laws and enforcement. I certainly think that solution is more conducive towards actual justice than having to sue every time you are wronged.

The problem with externalities is best explained by explaining the purpose of the free market in terms of Pareto efficiency. Given a set of people and a set of allocations of resources, a move to a different set of allocations is considered a Pareto optimization if at least one person is better off and no one is worse off. The free market is a generally very effective means of performing Pareto optimizations. There are certain times when it is not, and some other more effective method needs to be used.

In the case of externalities such as education, the free market does not do a good job of allocating resources. This is because no one can charge for education what it is worth, so fewer sellers will enter the market than is optimal. The resources society allocates to education will be less than optimal under a free market solution because of the externality.

In fact, there is a system that can do better than the free market in this case, and we are using it. I have watched the coming of the free market charter schools and I have been completely underwhelmed by their performance. I have read of one after another failing to live up to their promises.

Libertarianism is so alluring because it promises an easy, sound-bite answer to any problem: the free market. I really wish the answer to the problems of the world was that simple, but it isn't. Different problems call for different solutions and the free market is not a solution to everything.

Personally, I don't believe in the use of force except to deter aggression, and that aggression must be pretty forceful and clear cut. None of this, "Well, they might be a danger so let's pre-emptively defend ourselves." But I do believe in withdrawal of the rewards of being a member of society if one is not willing to live by that societies rules.

If we, as a people, decide that you can not burn trash and pollute

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to criticize Christianity, learn something about it first. (Mind you, a good number of Christians could stand to learn something about Christianity.)

Thou shalt not bear false witness, sayeth God. But would you then turn Anne Frank over to the authorities when the Gestapo comes knocking?

"And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country. And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were:"
"And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho."

Thou shalt keep the Sabbath. A hungry baby knows nothing of why you won't buy milk on Saturday.

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?"

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Anonymous Coward]

So depending on which parts of the bible I read, and how I happen to interpret the loose language that's been translated over hundreds of years by men with conflicting goals, morals, societies, and educations, I can come to vastly different, and indeed contradictory conclusions? Say it ain't so!

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You're putting a value weight on 'kill' when you use the word murder.

That's sort of the point. Killing is ok sometimes and not ok other times.

Is it murder to kill an enemy in battle?

Unless he's surrendered, then yes, always.

In samurai culture, it was tradition that one samurai would cut the head off of another samurai in order to ease the sufferring of the dying person. Is that different from pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo?

Sure: in one case, you're assisting in ritual suicide, while in the other, you're moving a body.

The simple use of the word 'murder' connotates many things that are not so simply or universally understood. You would have a point if you had said "Don't kill", leaving out any value judgements.

And that's the whole reason for using that word - saying thou shalt not kill just perpetuates a warped translation of a good idea. It's largely up to each society to draw the line where killing becomes murder.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[planetmn]

Think about it. The least restricted areas are always the most productive, whether by area we're talking about a neighborhood, a country, or an industrial sector. The polities that most thouroughly purge libertarian principles - the soviet union being a prominent example - collapse under their own inability to work.

And just how is Somalia working out?

-dave

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[Arker]

Phenominally well, once you control for their starting position (poorer than Ethiopia) and all the murderous interventions that have had to be weathered.

Re:Go read some Nietzche and Sartre

[planetmn]

So in other words, once you take out all the negative effects of libertarianism, it's working well. There's some good logic for you.

-dave

thats easy.

[dartarrow]

Sell Fish

Grow some balls

[illuminatedwax]

and quit.

Seriously. If you're not going to stand up for your beliefs, why bother having them?

Re:Grow some balls

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow some balls

I had a similar suggestion because of this in the original:

I do not wish to actively support something I believe to be an exploitation of human beings. What would you in the Slashdot community do in such a situation?

My guess is that this guy/gal works for Maxim or Stuff or something. Either grow a penis or realize that these women do this with their own free will, and probably get paid more than you do, or quit and get paid less than you currently do.

One of these choices has a future... and let me add that "quitting because of a moral choice" doesn't look good on a resume or in an interview if the topic is as tame as soft porn.

Re:Grow some balls

[panaceaa]

Quitting may be one option, but it's a pretty extreme one, don't you think? The submitter appears to have some feelings for his co-workers (he doesn't want to leave the project early), so it seems like he's happy with his work place. I like the first poster's idea of telling the boss about the morals the submitter has and requesting a new project. But there's many different ways to approach it -- it can be something immediate, something after the project is done, or perhaps even a request through HR (depending on the size of the company). But quitting without exploring other options at the company seems a little immature.

Re:Grow some balls

[illuminatedwax]

I'll be honest, I didn't really read the whole thing. But he should do something. I suppose asking exactly how is a valid question, but not one for Slashdot.

Re:Grow some balls

[Zadaz]

Quitting is extreme? In what sense?

If he's skilled enough to get one job, he's skilled enough to get another. There's no reason for a Flash developer (or any person with all their fingers and toes, and an IQ above 90) to not find some way to provide food and shelter for themselves. However people believe it will happen, so people do stupid things like take the first job offer, or selling their morals for money.

Not only should he quit, he should think about donating the money he's already made to a charity that fights whatever moral issues he had.

Or he could just change his Big List of Morals to match what he's thinking (which is: money > this moral problem) and get on with the job without guilt.

Re:Grow some balls

[oyenstikker]

"and let me add that 'quitting because of a moral choice' doesn't look good on a resume or in an interview if the topic is as tame as soft porn."

It would look good if I were considering hiring you. If you refuse to do unethical things that your boss tells you to do, I can be pretty sure you won't do similar unethical things on your own.

Re:Grow some balls

[mgblst]

Fine, then you quit, since it isn't extreme, just to prove you point. Oh, I am sure you could find lots of excuses not to quit, when it is your job on the line.

Re:Grow some balls

[Zadaz]

I have before. It's no big deal.

However now I own the company, so fuck you.

Someone doesn't like working for me, they can quit too.

Re:Grow some balls

[mgblst]

So you are saying you quit, then somehow managed owning the company? Very clever.

Yes, I can see such words of widom and irrefutable logic being requirements for owning a business.

And personally, selling old computer parts you swipe from work doesn't really qualify as a business.

Re:Grow some balls

[Anonymous Coward]

It would look good if I were considering hiring you. If you refuse to do unethical things that your boss tells you to do, I can be pretty sure you won't do similar unethical things on your own.

Sure, but let's say that the situation is this:

1. An employee's boss asks you to do something society in general doesn't consider unethical.
2. The employee considers it unethical.
3. You don't consider it unethical. (Take a leap of faith with me on this one-- think of a case where this might happen.)

Would it still look good on a resume or in an interview? In fact if it were on a resume as "quit for ethical reasons," wouldn't you be completely curious as to what it was to make sure you weren't getting into something you'll regret? (Be truthful.)

The term unethical gets confused with "personal morals" and "personal preference" alot. The topic is "objectifying women"; this is not considered unethical by society as a whole-- you can't even really say this is shunned by all or even most women. Yes, there exist groups who are completely against objectifying women-- but keep in mind, if they were the majority, objectifying women wold be something very rare, instead of an almost every day occurence.

Nowhere is this so clearly illustrated...

[Anonymous Coward]

How Do Developers Handle Moral Dilemmas? 12 of 8 comments

In related news, 18 out of 12 slashcode developers believe the fundamental axioms of mathematics are oppressive and immoral.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[QuantumG]

Yeah, and we could all have a pony if only enough of us had more love to share.

Pornography isn't allways imoral

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of representatives of both genders actively involved in producing and/or enjoying pornography on a voluntarly and fun basis.

My two cents...

[sirgoran]

My gut reaction is one of, "Shut up, suck it up, and do the job. Morals have no business in the workplace. You are a paid employee/droid that is given a task to complete. So do it. Have your morals on your time not the company's."

On the other hand, when I found myself in a moral dilemma seeing one account executive stealing supplies, software, and property from the company, an account supervisor rigging a winning spot in a contest for her niece that our company ran for a large restaurant chain, I made the choice to stand up and speak out. While they thanked me for speaking up, and "looked into the matter", it became clear that I wasted my breath.

That is until I was "downsized", and a couple of months later so was the thief. The account supervisor got her hands slapped and was taken off that account.

So it's really your choice. For me, I'd love to go back and tell myself to STFU and keep my head down.

That's my two cents.

-Goran

Re:My two cents...

[tttonyyy]

My gut reaction is one of, "Shut up, suck it up, and do the job. Morals have no business in the workplace. You are a paid employee/droid that is given a task to complete. So do it. Have your morals on your time not the company's."

Most people have a threshold though. What about working on weapons? What about being the pilot on route to drop a nuke on a major city? By your argument a job is a job after all - should we not think about our actions?

Re:My two cents...

[dscho]

"Morals have no business in the workplace."

That's exactly what makes people burn your flag, and eventually fly your planes. If you do not know what I am talking about, then think very long and hard about why people do have morals at all.

Re:My two cents...

[BalkanBoy]

What makes people burn your flag and fly your planes is leaders of countries, religious preachers, and biblical instruments who preach that it is moral to kill infidels by flying planes and express resentment by burning flags.

Morality is a fluid concept. Economics isn't. The two concept though can certainly co-exist and co-operate. Why won't those who understand neither take a hint from someone that understands both?

Can you please define what you meant by morals now, in your worldview?

Re:My two cents...

[dscho]

"Can you please define what you meant by morals now, in your worldview?"

I thought it was evident: it is a common standard between people. In the ideal it is a promise not to do something to others that you don't want them to do to you. By that, lawsuits and killing other people could be avoided (raising your fitness for survival).

"Morality is a fluid concept. Economics isn't."

Right on the first account, wrong on the second (just look around in the world, not just the "Western" part).

Re:My two cents...

[BalkanBoy]

> I thought it was evident: it is a common standard between people.

Hm, I beg to differ. It is not evident to me at all. We, savages from the Balkans, think women should know how to cook and that women should be virgins before they get married (ok, I lucked out on both counts, but that's God's hand, not by choice).

Now, suppose this is a moral standard by my people. So, what happens when someone doesn't share that standard with me, and not only that, he is ready to DIE for it, and fight for HIS convictions to death, and argue HIS convictions at the top of his lungs. Let's put that "common standard" to test. What do you think will happen when I show up and argue my moral standards in front of those that disagree with me, and there are millions bound to disagree with me on this one? You can flip that around, as in, I consider it a moral standard for women to have been sluts before marriage and can't cook a burger... and argue that in Sharia countries....

> Right on the first account, wrong on the second (just look around in the world, not just the "Western" part).

I'll say right on both accounts, but before you disagree with me, you certainly need to provide what you mean by look around the world, not just the western part, as relating to economics being a fluid concept. Did you mean that living conditions aren't the same around the planet, as in living conditions in the West aren't the same as in the Palestine or Rwanda?

Re:My two cents...

[clickclickdrone]

>That is until I was "downsized",
Over here (UK) you're employer would end up in court pretty darned quick for a stunt like that.

Re:My two cents...

[Anonymous Coward]

economics being a fluid

I'd say it depends on what you mean by not fluid. Point to a perfect capitalist economy, where the government would never interfere with the market, and you'll be pointing at a government that either executes or imprisons people who sell child porn. How about consistency, like the US where corn farmers receive massive subsidies to hold the price of corn down below the point where they can break even without government assistance, while sugar producers are basically driven out of the country? What other measures of fluidity are there?

Re:My two cents...

[lawpoop]

"Morals have no business in the workplace."

Are you okay with slavery?

How about sex slavery?

Re:My two cents...

[RexRhino]

You are taking the most extreme examples, and then applying them to this case.

We ALL must compromise our morals sometimes. Living in a country with 300 million people, and living on a planet with 6.5 billion people, means that not all people are going to share our moral views 100%, and if you don't compromise to a certain extent, you are alienating yourself from the vast majority of people. At some point the issue becomes so small, that it becomes unreasonable and you are just being a jerk.

An example: If people who are kosher or hallal refuse to eat pork, I totally understand. However, if someone who is Kosher or Hallal refused to print a newspaper ad for a resterant serving pork, whatever moral benifits you have from eating pork are outweighted by the negativity and conflict you create by not running the ad. You must also take in consideration the moral issue of doing things to make life difficult for other reasonable people in your community.

Dropping a nuke on civilians is a far cry from doing flash animation for Maxim magazine or whatever.

Re:My two cents...

[NDPTAL85]

I got 4 questions for you.

1. For you is there a difference between a woman who is not a virgin and a woman who is a slut and sleeps with everyone she meets?
2. Were you a virgin before you got married?
3. If the answer to question 2 is a no, do you consider yourself a sexist or a hypocrite?
4. Is marrying a virgin really such a good thing if you want a wife who is experienced in sex and will not require training?

Re:My two cents...

[antispam_ben]

What about being the pilot on route to drop a nuke on a major city?

Obligatory movie reference: "Fail Safe"

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[namespan]

Well, for those of us who care about REAL morals like, ya know, freedom and human rights and such, instead of "ooh, boobs!"

There are worse things than nudity, obviously. Including twits who've boiled a fairly nuanced area worthy of concern down to a false dichotomy featuring a vague glittering good and a gross oversimplification.

The OP took some care to show that he doesn't expect everyone else to share his particular standards and he's willing to respect the rights of others to produce and publish things he doesn't want to be involved in. His question isn't about whether YOU think porn is good or evil, it isn't about whether YOU think it's more important to write letters for Amnesty International or keep adult vids out of the hands of local kids. His question is about how to handle things when your employer wants you to participate in a project that crosses whatever your ethical boundaries may be. Maybe that's making a porn directory, maybe it's writing marketing copy for Exxon. If you want to contribute to the discussion, stepping up the ladder of abstraction and providing some advice on grappling with the situation would be a better alternative to criticizing the OP's or anyone else's particular moral values.

By posting access passwords on slashdot

[antifoidulus]

to you know....um...stick it to the man! Yeah, thats it!

Theories of ethics

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Contractual: you must honor commitments. If you've promised God to pray five times a day, if you're promised your wife to stay with her, then those are moral obligations. On this theory, ask whether you've promised to work on the project yet.

Textual: you follow what your holy book says. There has just got to be some Bible verse against Flash.

Compassionate: you ask whether people are hurt or helped by your actions. Will the company be better off? The customer? The customer's customers? Start thinking about those last and you have a reason not to work on tobacco ads, for example.

Reciprocal: you follow the Golden Rule. What would you hope for if you were one of the parties affected by your decision?

Foreseeable consequences: what will follow from your actions?

Arbitrary crap: you grew up around people who thought something was immoral, like say interracial marriage, and you've never checked the idea against any kind of principle. This is the most common approach.

Whatever standard you use, there has to be a set of priorities to go with it. You're using the job to support your family. You'd have to quit if the place were kidnapping the homeless and turning them into Soylent Green, but for much else you have to balance against your family's well being. You have talked this over with your wife??

Re:Theories of ethics

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You'd have to quit if the place were kidnapping the homeless and turning them into Soylent Green

Whoa, whoa. How else do you think you're going to make Soylent Green?

Re:Theories of ethics

[micpp]

I thought maybe we could finally find a good use for lawyers.

Re:Theories of ethics

[advs89]

If I had mod points, you would have just gotten all of them... Hands down, best answer on the entire page.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe the OP needs to grow the fuck up and realize that softcore porn isn't a "moral dilemma"? Some people waste their times concerned about the most idiotic things. Really, if producing a site that helps deliver soft porn is a morally grey area for someone, he needs to get out more.

More information?

[seebs]

Without some more specific details, I don't see how we could form an opinion on this.

In general, though... You have to live with yourself a lot longer than you'll be at any given job, in general.

How easy is it for you to find work?

[JumperCable]

If it is easy for you to find work at similar compensation levels that do not compromise your morals there is no reason for you to continue to do this work. They are your morals and you are more than welcome to them so long as you are not forcing them on others. If you are concerned about the well being of your co-workers simply offer to help transition to the new person. Who knows, maybe other people in your company involved in the project have similar moral objections but are afraid to speak out. If leaving this place of employment is not a problem, go ahead and speak your mind in a calm, reasonable matter. But bear in mind there is not legal protection for employment based on morals when no laws matters prohibit such activities. Nor should you expect your company & coworkers to bend down to the lowest common denominator of the most stringent set of morals in the company.

However, if you don't think that you can find equitable work else where and are not willing to take a cut in pay, I strongly suggest you do what the rest of us do and play ball until such a time comes when you can afford to move on.

What is the size of the company?

[Megaport]

If you are at a small company, then maybe you should simply seek work elsewhere. If they are small, then you will have to participate in pretty much most projects, and they have already shown that they will take work that is of dubious moral character (in relation to your personal standards).

If it is a large company, let them get to know you better. When you are sure that your manager knows you well enough to know that you are not a nutcase, simply tell them that you are sometimes uncomfortable with certain aspects of your work on particular types of projects, and that you'd appreciate it if they can use their awesome management power to help you out. Negotiate with managers in the same manner that police negotiate with bank robbers, "Yes, only you have the power to let the women and children go... Show us how powerful you are by letting a few go right now..."

I work in a medium sized company, and everyone knows I'm a Christian so on the very rare occasion that we work for a client from an industry that is legal but not particularly moral, some sort of magic portal opens and I'm transported in the opposite direction from that project team.

I find that people respect your beliefs if you give them the opportunity. Just avoid situations where it might be percieved as being demanding or intolerant.

-M

Talk to them

[SanityInAnarchy]

Good points, and you actually have some real experience -- I don't. I'm just going to throw out one piece of advice to the questioner:

I would suggest that the easiest way to get some perspective would be to talk to the pornstars. Find out if they like what they do, what kind of other choices they have if they don't... Ask them if they have any moral issues. Ask them what they think you should do.

Personally, I find the Flash more offensive. Even pornography can be done tastefully and ethically, but Flash is neither. If you have the technical skills to do so, I'd suggest you try to find a way to replace all of your flash work with actual web standards -- DHTML (now called AJAX), animated GIFs/PNGs, maybe some embedded mpegs. You can at least feel better for putting together a decent proposal, even if nothing changes by the end of the day.

Professionalism vs Craftsmanship

[bug1]

I myself have been in a similar situation to you (though not related to pornography), the conclusion i came up with is...

If your a professional you wont let your beliefs get in the way of your work.

I get into programming about 20 years ago, i love programming, i expect to always have a project on the go (and maybe one day i will finish one), but its taken me this long to understand that i dont want to be a professional programmer.

Professionalism means that you have to be prepared to compromise your own goals so the teams goals are achieved.

Im way too passionate about programming to be a professional, i hate it when im expected to "finish" a project and move on, to have to give up on all the ideas i have floating around in my head... i care about quality.

I now consider myself to be a craftsman, and i suspect a lot of open source programmers are this way inclined.

If open source was about professionalism, programmers wouldnt care about peer review, they wouldnt argue about coding style, or languages, they would just care about adding the next feature.

A craftsman/artist wants perfection, a professional just wants to finish...

Your first mistake...

[Dekortage]

Your first mistake was taking a job that would put you in this position. For future reference, I suggest telling prospective employers that you have personal reasons for not working on so-called "adult-oriented" content like this. You need to say this up front or you will end up surprising them (and not in a good way) when it comes up later. Admittedly, if you say this in a job interview, you are likely to lose some possible opportunities, but your convictions are nothing more than vapor if you don't actually stand by them.

Oh, the other thing about convictions: if you are plagued with regret after you make a decision based on your convictions, there is a chance that they weren't really convictions after all, but simply some kind of moral costume you put on to help yourself feel better. Test and refine your convictions as time passes, but don't regret them: you have to believe them fully.

I was recently offered more than five times my current hourly rate to be the lead developer on a big Flash and video-intensive web site for a new casino. I have moral objections to casinos, so I turned it down. The money would have been very handy, but I still have to live with my own conscience. I'm sure someone else has picked up the job. I have zero regrets about my decision. I simply refuse to be associated with casinos and all the social problems they lead to (dramatically increased bankruptcy rates, violent crime, auto thefts, larceny, substance abuse, suicide rates, etc.).

Re:Your first mistake...

[dolphino]

I simply refuse to be associated with casinos and all the social problems they lead to (dramatically increased bankruptcy rates, violent crime, auto thefts, larceny, substance abuse, suicide rates, etc.).

If by casinos you meant the public school system then yes, i totally agree.

Donate

[wizrd_nml]

I am sometimes faced with similar situations in my work where my employer requests that I work with clients that are in industries that operate against my beliefs. I am a Muslim and so this would include for example doing work for a brewery (which I had to do at one point). I do believe in standing for one's beliefs and morals and I found things like this extremely tough to handle, but we live in difficult times and it's not exactly easy to just quit.

I find that the best solution (and one that lets me sleep well at night) is this:
1) Donate the part of my income that accrued from this job (for example if I work two weeks on the brewery, I would donate two weeks out of my annual income). This way I personally do not benefit from this work, and some good is done in society.
2) Obviously part two is to minimise the amount of work done where I have to give my money away (after all I'm not working in order donate everything I make). This means you have to sit down with your employer and explain to him/her how you stand on certain issues.

I hope this helps!

Re:Donate

[Creepy Crawler]

What is inherently bad about alcohol?

I do agree that excessive alcohol usage is bad, but doesnt excessive *anything* lead to very bad things?

I know many Christians who think alcohol is the "demon drink", so Im not attacking Islam... just all the religions that have this belief.

Re:Donate

[wizrd_nml]

What is inherently bad about alcohol?

That's a pretty interesting question. Islam recognises the benefits of drinking alcohol, as modern medicine recently discovered. This is a quote from the Quran, the Islamic scripture:

"They ask you regarding wine and gambling. Say, in both of them is major sin, and there is some benefit for men, but the sin of them is far greater than benefit " (Surah Baqarah)

There are two key reasons why alcohol is banned in Islam:

First, although many people will be able to control their consumption of alcohol, there is also a large number who won't be able to and who will affect those around them. And so the overall effect on society is negative. Today we can see this as broken families, drunk driving, children raised inappropriately by alcoholic parents, disease during childbirth, and so on.

Second, and in my opinion probably the more important reason, is that Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism, has the concept of being judged after you die for your actions during your lifetime. So people who do more good go to heaven, and those who do more evil go to hell. However, you can only be judged if you have free will and the ability to differentiate between good and evil (i.e. an able mind). Anything that impairs your ability to make these judgments is haram (not allowed in Islam). This also includes taking drugs for example.

Keep in mind though that Islam is very flexible when it comes to times of need. So for example if one needs a hallucinogen to recover from an illness, or needs to drink alcohol to avoid starvation, then it's ok to consume them.

Re:Donate

[Creepy Crawler]

---That's a pretty interesting question. Islam recognises the benefits of drinking alcohol, as modern medicine recently discovered. This is a quote from the Quran, the Islamic scripture:

---"They ask you regarding wine and gambling. Say, in both of them is major sin, and there is some benefit for men, but the sin of them is far greater than benefit " (Surah Baqarah)

I could agree with that. I've always seen gambling as a fools game, but thought the fools deserved it (because they couldnt work out the math..)

---There are two key reasons why alcohol is banned in Islam:

---First, although many people will be able to control their consumption of alcohol, there is also a large number who won't be able to and who will affect those around them. And so the overall effect on society is negative. Today we can see this as broken families, drunk driving, children raised inappropriately by alcoholic parents, disease during childbirth, and so on.

Yes, improper use of alcohol does lead to all those effects. What then of the people who drink, say, one glass with a meal, and train children to be responsible? I see that training responsibility and honor is above demonizing any one such substance. For example, many 21 year olds in the US die on their birthday due to alcohol related deaths due to "going crazy" because they drank till they passed out or drove home. They were kept away from alcohol and did not learn responsibility when consuming alcohol.

I have drank alcohol since 6 years old (essentially a shot glass of red wine) with a meal. Im now 25 and I still drink wines and such with a meal. Ive never got drunk because I hate loosing control (I was drugged once and I hated it...LSD)

---Second, and in my opinion probably the more important reason, is that Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism, has the concept of being judged after you die for your actions during your lifetime. So people who do more good go to heaven, and those who do more evil go to hell. However, you can only be judged if you have free will and the ability to differentiate between good and evil (i.e. an able mind). Anything that impairs your ability to make these judgments is haram (not allowed in Islam). This also includes taking drugs for example.

In the regard of loosing control, I wholly agree. But I see what is evil is letting a substance or construct take control of your own life. For many, it is alcohol. For others, it can be other drugs, control, pornography, gambling, mammon, you name it. Loosing control is worse.

I'm Catholic, and I still take communion wine. We purchase from a local winery.

---Keep in mind though that Islam is very flexible when it comes to times of need. So for example if one needs a hallucinogen to recover from an illness, or needs to drink alcohol to avoid starvation, then it's ok to consume them.

Fair enough, I dont know of anybody who wouldnt break religious commands to keep alive from diseases or starvation.

I do thank you for replying.. A lot of times, slashdotters dont reply.

Creepy Crawler

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[X-treme-LLama]

No, but we probably COULD all have a pony if the ponies had more love to share. After all, if they're as common as dogs, everyone can have one.

If you want a pony, get 'em to start mating!

Are these formal at all?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Because they look easy to simplify.

Textual is Arbitrary Crap. How many people quote the Bible where it supports their beliefs, but ignore it where it contradicts them? How many people who deeply believe in the Bible have ever questioned it?

Compassionate is a function of Reciprocal. Or possibly vice versa, but this one's easy to figure out. You want people to be helped, not hurt, because as a person, you'd want to be helped (not hurt).

Reciprocal is a function of Forseeable consequences, as well as pure hedonism. Follow the Golden Rule and, aside from simply feeling better, it also simply works better. The forseeable consequences of being a bastard, for instance, means people will treat you much worse than if you were friendly and respectful.

Forseeable consequences is actually not so much morality as it is a fact of life, so in the above paragraph, it's the hedonism that matters -- move towards pleasure and away from pain, but for the long term. You care about forseeable consequences because you want pleasure in the future. You make decisions based on your own wants, checking one against the other -- is it worth getting yelled at later (pain) to steal cookies from the cookie jar now (pleasure)?

So, it really comes down to intelligent hedonism, once you eliminate the arbitrary crap. And really, the intelligent hedonism is just more arbitrary crap -- you could just as easily make yourself completely miserable, and some people seem to enjoy that so much they spend their whole lives almost intentionally making themselves miserable so they have something to bitch about.

Re:Are these formal at all?

[Rostin]

"Textual is Arbitrary Crap. How many people quote the Bible where it supports their beliefs, but ignore it where it contradicts them?"

Relatively few, I'd say. Most people simply ignore it altogether. Of course, you'll drag out the same old arguments about wearing clothes made of mixed fibers, and when some Christian explains it all to you yet again, you'll ignore him and continue saying that it's selective and self-serving. However, even if you're right and most people do selectively quote the bible, you're still wrong generally. Our conformance to the bible would be "arbitrary", but the bible itself wouldn't necessarily be.

"How many people who deeply believe in the Bible have ever questioned it?"

I think you'd be surprised. I've heard before that in reality one of the main functions of apologetics is not to convince really skeptical people (that rarely happens), but to shore up sagging confidence among believers. I'd say that I "deeply believe" in the bible, but I question it pretty often.

Re:Are these formal at all?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Our conformance to the bible would be "arbitrary", but the bible itself wouldn't necessarily be.

Since the bible is self-contradictory, and also directly contradicts what many of us consider to be good morality, I have never heard of anyone who conforms to the bible, or interprets it, literally and completely. We are arbitrary in not only our conformance, but our very reading of it.

However, you're right. It's theoretically possible that someone would base their morality strictly on the bible, without any arbitrary crap thrown in. That's still arbitrary, though -- why the bible and not, say, the Qur'An? Or the Tao Te Ching?

Any answer you give would contain, implicitly or explicitly, one of the other bits of morality. For instance: Suppose you say the Bible is the word of God. Even if I believe you about this, why should I follow it? God seems like a pretty nasty entity, based on the bible. Of course, you'll tell me all God's done for me, including sending his only son to die for me. Supposing you're right, my entire basis for using the bible as a moral guide is compassion/reciprocal.

Besides, I didn't say that the bible itself was arbitrary. I said "Textual" is arbitrary, and you were using that in the same context that you used "arbitrary crap". I grew up around people who told me that cold-blooded killing was wrong, and I pretty much stuck by that without thinking about it for many years. My selection of it was arbitrary, but the principle itself isn't, it's part of compassion/reciprocal/hedonism. (Don't kill people because you'd feel sorry for them, you wouldn't want them to kill you, and you don't want anyone coming to kill you or lock you up.)

Re:Are these formal at all?

[Rostin]

Since the bible is self-contradictory

I disagree with you, but in spite of what such charming and insightful resources as the Skeptics Annotated Bible might lead us to believe, it's a complicated subject, and I don't have time to go on and on about it. In a nutshell, identifying contradictions isn't as simple as it might seem. Whether statements are contradictory is subject to all kinds of considerations, such as genre, intent, subtleties of the grammar, etc. Many Christian apologists have misrepresented the situation by making it sound like a belief in infallibility/inerrancy is based purely on the observable consistency of the bible. As I said above, you might be surprised by how much many Christians do question the bible. There's stuff in the bible that really does seem contradictory (or morally objectionable) to me. The issue isn't (and shouldn't be), can I find a single contradiction? It's conceivable that something that really seems like a contradiction isn't. So, a more general and reasonable question is, on the balance of all the evidence (including the list of apparent contradictions), is the bible inerrant?

Any answer you give would contain, implicitly or explicitly, one of the other bits of morality.

That's a pretty good objection, I think. I was reading a debate a year or so ago and I think either Antony Flew or Kai Nielson pointed out the same thing. I was really not satisfied with the response that the theist participant gave. In my opinion, the question, "Why should I follow it?", is nonsense when you are talking about an ultimate standard like God. Why shouldn't I shoplift? well, because it's stealing, and you shouldn't steal. Why shouldn't I steal? And so on until either we can't answer "why" any more and conclude that it's all arbitrary, or we acknowledge that we live in a moral universe and we've reached the bottom. It would be analogous to asking why the law of non-contradiction is true. That's a hard or impossible question for us to get our arms around because the law of non-contradiction is our standard for deciding whether other statements are true. You can't argue against it without first assuming that it's valid. The question, "Why should I conform to the ultimate standard of morality?" is similar.

Re:Are these formal at all?

[SanityInAnarchy]

I don't have time to go on and on about it.

Neither do I, but I think I'll just point this out:

Whether statements are contradictory is subject to all kinds of considerations, such as genre, intent, subtleties of the grammar, etc.

Which brings it back to interpretation. There are things which seem obviously contradictory to me when I'm reading. Most of the time, I hear these reconciled with things like "Oh, this wasn't meant to be taken literally, it's obviously a metaphor." And then they turn around and pick the parts they like and insist that these are absolutely not metaphor, and that doesn't make sense to me.

...And so on until either we can't answer "why" any more and conclude that it's all arbitrary, or we acknowledge that we live in a moral universe and we've reached the bottom.

Saying that we've reached the bottom is itself arbitrary. For instance, you mention God as an ultimate standard -- the God I read about in the Bible made the Israelites into conquerors, directly responsible for genocide. So, it's completely and totally arbitrary for you to decide that your last step of "why" must include "because God said so".

Well, why should I listen to God? In fact, why can't we hold him to the same standards that we hold ourselves?

It would be analogous to asking why the law of non-contradiction is true. That's a hard or impossible question for us to get our arms around because the law of non-contradiction is our standard for deciding whether other statements are true.

Hmm... Unless I have an entirely different standard. The law of non-contradiction is something we all assume. Not all of us assume that all morality is because God said so. I, personally, see morality as a collection of what is known to work -- and ultimately, I see it as arbitrary, neither right or wrong. Still, I was able to come up with a single principle with which to measure other potential principles of morality.

You can't argue against it without first assuming that it's valid. The question, "Why should I conform to the ultimate standard of morality?" is similar.

Except I didn't say that. I said, "Why should I conform to God or the Bible?"

Now, that distinction is meaningless to many believers, and often leaves them completely stunned and unable to answer, because they hear what you just said -- they assume that God is the ultimate standard of morality, and the Bible is his word, whereas in essence, what I'm asking is "Why should I believe that God is that ultimate standard? Why do you believe that?"

Hopefully that clarifies it for you, however, most people will be just as stupified by that question as by the original one. To most people, that would be like asking "Why should I assume that water is wet?"

The most compelling arguments turn it around on me, and say that the ultimate standard of morality is a definition of God. But, these people usually have several seemingly-bulletproof arguments for the existence of a God, and they don't require it to be the same God -- and certainly, none of them require it to be a Christian God. And in any case, most of these arguments are ridiculoulsy weak, and show a profound lack of imagination, but sound good to people who want to believe.

It usually ends up being something like "If there's an ultimate standard of morality, I call it God." Problem is: There's nothing to convince me that there must be such a standard, and even if I was convinced, how do you know it's not the FSM? Or, say, Milton's Lucifer?

Any such argument inevitably falls on a declaration that there is an ultimate standard or source of morality, and an implicit assumption that the Bible is that source or standard, if not literally true. And your point about non-contradiction is half-right. I can argue very effectively against the Bible without having to admit that it has any validity -- a skill I wish the Democrats could learn. However, I don't see how anyone can argue effectively for the Bible without first assuming that it's true.

That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot

[namespan]

"Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never had a problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some guy from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And naturally they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what do I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president. "

Don't exploit yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not wish to actively support something I believe to be an exploitation of human beings.

If you really believe this, then why would you exploit yourself by working on the project?

Tell your boss you don't want to work on the project, and don't explain why unless asked. If that doesn't work, quit. Even if that causes short term pain, you'll thank yourself later. If you have an abundance mentality as I do, something better will come along and everything will turn out for the best.

Re: job is a job

[hany]

job is a job

That looks like an interesting idea, to just "do the job" and (presumably) "leave the responsibility and conscience to the boss". If the boss is moraly consistent (and compatible with his employees) and he is also responsible, than such job attitude may work.

Problem is, some bosses are neither responsible (they ussusaly are but only to themselves) nor moraly sound. And if employees "just do the job" for such boss, this one boss drags a lot of such employees down with him to the level, where those employees would not want to be.

So yes:

Most people have a threshold though.

And they should enforce it for the sake of preserving their own self (or soul or whatever you call it). Otherwise their own self cease to exist and their ideas and world-view will be replaced by that of their boss.

working for a scumbag

[1u3hr]

I worked for a guy, and the longer I did and the more I learnt about him the more disgusted I got. I wanted to jump ship, but there just wasn't anything around in my line, and having a wife and a toddler made me less cavalier about walking out. But I did protest; and refused to participate in the worst abuses. Such as he never paid our casual workers on time, usually months late after many, many broken promises. So when I had a project that needed such people I just stopped and did something else. He would yell at me to get it done, but when I asked him to guarantee that work I commissioned would be paid, he just changed tack and abused me. Eventually I did find an alternative employer and was glad to be able to leave, but even though I'd blunted some of his abuses I still felt culpable.

Moral? What morals?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's essentially the spirit.

You get money to do stuff. As long as this stuff isn't illegal, do it.

Morals are way out of place at your work place. It's the company board that decides what is good for the company, and what is bad, not you. Take your petty problems elsewhere, and start to do your job, or risk getting fired.

Most people have an arbitrary stupid set of morals which stops them from doing the right thing in a capitalistic society (making money).

--Working for a web hosting company which hosts several child modeling sites

Re:Moral? What morals?

[Magada]

Yes, yes. You do know that sticking Jews in ovens was perfectly legal (mandatory, even) in Nazi Germany, no? Would you take that kind of job (for excellent pay) if it came your way? If not, why not?

Re:Moral? What morals?

[Anonymous Coward]

I probably wouldn't have had much of an issue with that.

Beggers can't be choosers, and i would've just gone the way the money is. In order to facilitate MY survival (which i consider more important than your, or anyone elses survival).

You talk about porn..

[clickclickdrone]

like it's a bad thing.

moral agreement, or just morals?

[bzipitidoo]

Is it morally acceptable for a Republican to work with or for Democrats? Sure it is. There should be no problem working with people who have different viewpoints, so long as they stay within the bounds of civility, as in, no criminal, abusive, or unfair acts. Turn the question around, and ask if they should terminate you because you support causes they oppose, with the money they pay you. Not only should they not, we have these equal opportunity laws that forbid discrimination based on creeds.

Everyone has different priorities and opinions. If you have too many you feel strongly about, and you won't work for anyone who disagrees with any of them, then you may end up unemployed for a very long time.

Morality at the heart of economics

[Geof]

Morality is a fluid concept. Economics isn't.

Economics is inseperable from morality. Economic models try to maximize certain values or outcomes; the choice of the outcome to maximize is a moral one. You can argue that those choices are not part of economics, but then economics is an abstraction divorced from reality. What is your economics for? As soon as you apply economics, you must make value judgments.

I'll give you an example. Pareto optimality maximizes the well-being of individuals without reducing the well-being of any. How then is well-being defined? Many economists may equate it to individual preferences. But that's a value judgment. If my preference is to eat unhealthily, is doing so contributing to my well-being? Furthermore, Pareto optimality is inherently conservative (as opposed to radical) in that it does not overturn existing inequalities. That is a value judgment implied by applications of Pareto optimality. To the extent that the field of economics focuses on Pareto optimality, it is choosing to pursue a particular set of values.

As for the fluidity of morality, that itself is a judgment. Many - such as those of religious conviction - would disagree. Just as others would take a step beyond your claim that preachers and national leaders make people burn flags and fly planes into buildings and ask what makes those preachers and leaders. I won't make any claims in that debate, only say that the answers aren't so simple and clean-cut any more than is the distinction between morality and economics.

Re:Morality at the heart of economics

[BalkanBoy]

> Economics is inseperable from morality.

Are you saying I should feel bad that the United States and the G7 have a bigger piece of the pie than let's say 80 or 90% of the planet? Whatever. What are you, a socialist?

Where does it say that Pareto optimality is equitable?

That is what the parent was bitching about. Well, tough luck - it's the way of the world. If they can pry my pie piece from my cold dead hands by flying planes into buildings, let them try. All that will do is polarize people even more.

The US knows how to take as well as retain value then better than anyone else. Do you have a problem with that Geof? Are you a socialist or communist at heart by the way? Idealist perhaps? Just curious.

There's one thing I can tell you though - the US as a country and a collective intellect is a shitload more adept at making distinctions between morality and economics than some sand pounding hell hole in the middle east. No, I'm not racist, bigotted or anything. Just really _real_, as in painfully real, and aware that all that I consider "valuable" could evaporate the next day for X Y Z reason. You name one.

Re:Morality at the heart of economics

[BalkanBoy]

Come to think of it, I found it pretty freaking slick at how you conflated economics and morality - but the more I think about it, the more I believe one doesn't follow the other. We are inherently different from one another, physically, intelectually, in many ways - if you require 1 lbs of meat sustenance per day to survive and I require 1/2 lbs, but we only have 1 lbs available - should I or you die in the face of limited resources?

I know what you will say next to subvert my argument - but please, spare me the moral bullshit - it does not work that way. I can obviously not think of too many examples where it doesn't right now (I'm a bit tired, 3am and all...), but let's say you were right - then you are basically advocating communism of sorts, or some sort of equal distribution of wealth, and I just can't buy that only on the account of prior historical instances. Not that I can necessarily prove or disprove whether it is possible to sustain communist/socialist/whatever past-liberal regimes, I'm just saying so far any attempts have failed.

Try slashdotting in another thousand years when we conflate organic and cybernetic tissue, become Borg, can self-repair/heal and have one collective mind working as one.

Re:Morality at the heart of economics

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I found it pretty freaking slick at how you conflated economics and morality - but the more I think about it, the more I believe one doesn't follow the other.

I'm not the previous poster, but I certainly think economics is a tool that can be used to accomplish some moral or ethical goal. It is as related to ethics as say, law is.

but let's say you were right - then you are basically advocating communism of sorts, or some sort of equal distribution of wealth, and I just can't buy that only on the account of prior historical instances. Not that I can necessarily prove or disprove whether it is possible to sustain communist/socialist/whatever past-liberal regimes, I'm just saying so far any attempts have failed.

You're making a classic mistake. An economy is not a capitalist one or a socialist one or a communist one. Every economic system on the planet is a blend of all three in different proportions. Historically, the US has always practiced communism on a wide scale, with communist cells being families and extended families. Historically the US has almost always practiced socialism in the form of a navy a postal system and public schools. Historically the US has always practiced capitalism in the form a of a largely unregulated market and private businesses.

When you refer to "historical instances" what you're probably referring to is instances where an economic system tried to move to move to an extreme. Too large of communist cell sizes leads to too much concentration of power paired with unmotivated decision making. It makes power grabs by any one power too easy in most political systems. Too much socialism in a non-closed system leads to lack of motivation for innovation and a stagnating economy easily disrupted by outside forces. Too much capitalism leads to concentration of wealth and eventual return to feudalism and then violent revolution by the poor.

Make no mistake, however, our current balance of these elements is not a moral choice, but a practical one as determined by what works. It is not more moral or ethical to share resources among a family or extended family or whole community. It is not more moral or ethical for the wealthy to be taxed more heavily than the poor. It is simply a matter of trying to maximize whatever values a society possesses, whether those are ideal living conditions, freedom of choice, or minimal government intervention.

Re:Morality at the heart of economics

[Geof]

You are making a whole lot of assumptions here. I only claimed that morality and economics are practically inseperable. I gave an example of an economic value judgement. I did not say what my opinion of that judgment is, or whether I even have one.

You can disagree with the logic of my argument or maybe convince me it's wrong. The fact that you take it personally - even more that you jump to political conclusions based on my even making it in the first place only shows that for you anyway economics and morality are inseperable.

Where does it say that Pareto optimality is equitable?

Nowhere. It's pretty clear it's not. Although it can reduce inequality, up to a point: it tries to give as much as possible to everyone without taking anything away. The point is that choosing to apply Pareto optimality is a value judgment.

Are you saying I should feel bad that the United States and the G7 have a bigger piece of the pie than let's say 80 or 90% of the planet? Whatever.

I didn't say that, and have no interest in arguing it here one way or the other. Based on the post I replied to (in which you talked about "your flag" and "your planes"), I didn't even think you were American. I'm not, so I don't think it's helpful for me to run around telling Americans what they should or shouldn't feel. Any response to that question, however - including yours - is a moral one.

you are basically advocating communism of sorts, or some sort of equal distribution of wealth

I didn't advocate anything. I only stated that economic choices have moral implications. The choice to pursue such a redistribution is a moral one. The choice to pursue a different outcome is also a moral one. Why are you so eager to deny the existence of these choices? Why are you so interested in lumping my argument in with socialism or communism?

Re:Morality at the heart of economics

[BalkanBoy]

Ok, you did not advocate anything - which is why I jabbed (because in all honesty, you said a lot, and I still found you hard to decipher as to what it is you "advocated"). But it appeared to me that you might be advocating equal (re)distribution of wealth. And that's like shooting for the stars right now.

I'm not opposed to anything, just for the record. If you are the one to find a way to keep everyone alive happy and blissful without a single complaint, more power to you. I won't have a problem following you.

It was I that misunderstood you as a wannabe communist :). Sorry.

Re:Morality at the heart of economics

[BalkanBoy]

> I'm not the previous poster, but I certainly think economics is a tool that can be used to accomplish some moral or ethical goal. It is as related to ethics as say, law is.

Yes. As it can be used to accomplish immoral goals on a grand scale. So that was my point I suppose, but we veered off too far I suppose.

> Historically the US has almost always practiced socialism in the form of a navy a postal system and public schools.

Ok, so why not add healthcare into the picture then? You don't want to part with an additional .10 on the dollar for that? At least provide it for people who are between jobs, laid off.

US is still the most capitalist country in the world. And I'd like to think it looks at what others have tried to institute and not repeat their mistakes. The job market in the US is the best there is. Not Canada's, Germany's, Sweden's, or whatever... All those practice "socialism" on a grand scale, yet suffer in many ways. I suppose it's a matter of trade offs, but I like the tradeoffs the US has made here better than in other developed countries.

> referring to is instances where an economic system tried to move to move to an extreme.

Alright man - I dig it. A little bit of everything all rolled into one, but never afraid to try a new approach and back off if it don't work - that's the U.S. of A. Right on. As for concentration of wealth, you should probably look at some tax statistics on the irs.gov website :) on personal income tax returns. Please tell me the # of people filing with 10M+ as opposed to everyone else, percentage wise. Then we'll talk about extremes :). But you know what? Who cares. As long as they keep the country's consumerist spirit alive, and those who have money actually aren't afraid to spend it, well they can have it all. So we're extreme alright, in how wealth is apportioned, but seems those on the top of the "food chain" have, ok, I'm giving in - "moral values" :), so they spend it wisely. Ball's rolling... in a sinusoidal manner.

> Make no mistake, however, our current balance of these elements is not a moral choice, but a practical one as determined by what works.

Right. And what works doesn't capture the attention of certain countries because their leaders allegedly know better. So they fly airplaines into buildings.

I get it man... and I think you're in tune. But let's get back to the original point of this whole thread - a dude was asking if he should wear his moral values on his sleeve in front of his boss at the cost of losing a shitty Flash developer job (I did not know there were such jobs, being that I write code in C,C++,Java,etc, but hey.. IT is big), and I opted for no don't do it, because that's what works, and I know this from prior experience. Most people with a sane head on their shoulders also responded to that effect. Seems slashdot is inhabited by a bunch of wussies so they moderate those down and moderate the ones that tell him to yeah, smack your boss with your moral values type of arguments, up. If he does that, he's bound to lose his job.

9 out of 10, morals only get in the way. The one time where you should hold onto them is very rare, and his case did not sound like one of those rare cases. It sounded like he's begging to be made an example out of.

Now, should he use his morals ? I dare him. Then he can come back here and ask another stupid ass slashdot question about where to get a job as a Flash developer.

Slashdot is, in my opinion, a bunch of fucking retards. About 3 people, you, Geoff and the missile guidance guy, made any fucking sense whatsoever. The rest is just some emotional/belief/moral drivel, completely misplaced and out of context.

Re:Morality at the heart of economics

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Ok, so why not add healthcare into the picture then? You don't want to part with an additional .10 on the dollar for that? At least provide it for people who are between jobs, laid off.

I wasn't speaking to what the best balance was with regard to particulars. If we're looking to increase standards of living, adding healthcare and instituting progressive inheritance taxes on the high end would be two socialist measures that would pull the US to a more balanced position and likely help the standard of living greatly.

US is still the most capitalist country in the world.

In some ways maybe, but certainly not in others. We regulate lots of industries more-so than other places. Drugs, telecom, etc. are good examples. There are lots of places in Africa, for example, where I can go buy anything I want without government interference, often without even any taxes.

The job market in the US is the best there is. Not Canada's, Germany's, Sweden's, or whatever... All those practice "socialism" on a grand scale, yet suffer in many ways.

Independent studies have not concluded the same thing. The US practices as much socialism as most of Europe, we just spend the money on different socialist programs, like the military.

I suppose it's a matter of trade offs, but I like the tradeoffs the US has made here better than in other developed countries.

Well, everyone has a preference I suppose. How many other countries have you lived in?

Right. And what works doesn't capture the attention of certain countries because their leaders allegedly know better. So they fly airplaines into buildings.

All countries have leaders that think they know better. People fly buildings into airplanes because they are angry, often because we've given them a lot of reasons to be angry.

I opted for no don't do it, because that's what works, and I know this from prior experience.

It is hard to balance practical considerations with ethical responsibility. I'm not about to judge anyone else's choices in that regard.

...yeah, smack your boss with your moral values type of arguments, up. If he does that, he's bound to lose his job.

That is likely, but sometimes losing your job is the best thing to do. I'm not a mercenary. Sure I do contract work, but I also work for an employer to whom I feel loyalty because of ethical considerations. If not for those, I could make more money elsewhere. I don't, because money is not the most important thing in my life. I'm not even talking about abstract morals here, but quality of living. I'd rather work for a boss I like and who grabs me a beer from the fridge at 9am, without looking at me funny than make another 40K and retire sooner.

9 out of 10, morals only get in the way. The one time where you should hold onto them is very rare...

Discussion of morals is pretty pointless. They are subjective.

Slashdot is, in my opinion, a bunch of fucking retards. About 3 people, you, Geoff and the missile guidance guy, made any fucking sense whatsoever. The rest is just some emotional/belief/moral drivel, completely misplaced and out of context.

There is an increasingly high noise to signal ratio on Slashdot, but there are still more intelligent and knowledgeable people here than most forums. This particular discussion is less technical and thus probably has more subjective and useless opinions than most. The solution is easy, move on. I think I will right now.

Re:Morality at the heart of economics

[BalkanBoy]

> That is likely, but sometimes losing your job is the best thing to do. I'm not a mercenary. Sure I do contract work, but I also work for an employer to whom I feel loyalty because of ethical considerations.
> If not for those, I could make more money elsewhere. I don't, because money is not the most important thing in my life. I'm not even talking about abstract morals here, but quality of living. I'd rather
> work for a boss I like and who grabs me a beer from the fridge at 9am, without looking at me funny than make another 40K and retire sooner.

I get it. Money's not the be all end all. But before you decide to lose your job, did you really re-examine all of your mental choices that got you to the point where you want to quit?

I love my current employer. The owner, one of them, I particularly respect, like my own father. He's wise, mature, well educated, has a really nice family and has, in my view, made it in life.

At my previous job, all that mattered to my previous employer/management was that I deliver on deadlines, in the face of inreased responsibilities. When you then screw up a few times, and get a bad review which shows you the door basically, whom do you blame? The employer for giving a shit less about my personal consideration, lack of time, lack of sleep (I was on a pager 5-6 days out of the week, _every month_)? Or should I blame myself for not knowing how to ask for more time, and limit my workload to what I can handle, versus to what I thought would make me look good and mighty?

So, while it is very convenient to blame the employer, or call it divine intervention that I found a job I am happy with 10 days after leaving that one - I choose to blame me for not adjusting to the mentality of my previous employer. Had I been more shrewd, selfish, bitchy, complaining - I would've probably gotten out of pager duty, and reduced my workload to a normal one, in a slow, purposeful manner over time.

let's just say once you get burned, you _learn_ how to readjust. As I said, unless someone is physically coercing you, or harassing you to the point of unbearable, leaving a job is typically a reflection of an employee's inability to adjust to the situation. Now, is that "right" or "wrong"? Shit if I know - I'll leave that to people with better judgment.

But I do know one thing - it is becoming a lot harder to string me along for a ride I do not like. At any employer. At any cost.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[QuantumG]

Heh. Nah, the problem is the reality that it takes a lot of land/food/hard work to adequately care for a pony. Same goes for puppies, but at least you don't find abandoned ponies at the pound.

Social specialization, pornography as a profession

[master_p]

First of all, why pornography is exploitation? porn stars willingly do the job. They are in for the money, and they have the goods to get that money. Why pornography is considered something bad, whereas selling guns or developing apps for the military is good? I have a friend which develops 'defense' applications, which may end up being used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is that moral, and seeing a boob is not moral?

The only reason sex is considered more of a problem than violence and guns is due to the weird morality standards that Christianity has adopted over the eons: sex is bad and should only be done within marriage (like as if it was not God that gave us the sexual urges) but conquering, slaughtering, bribing and all the other good stuff that the western world does these days are acceptable...(of course rape and pedophilia are different things because there is no consensus from all the parties involved).

So your real moral dilemma should be the support to a style of society that favors power as the ultimate goal in life...

But since we are all dependent on this style of society and things aren't gonna change soon, here is a more down to earth approach: do your job you were instructed to do, and let social services deal with the morals. That's their job, and today's society has specialized authorities just for those things.

You can also think it in this way: since the state/government/society almost adopts pornography, you should not worry too much about it...

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[macshit]

at least you don't find abandoned ponies at the pound.

Sure you do, it's just that they're a bit ... harder to identify. Wait until feeding time.

Developers deal with moral issues...

[Anonymous Coward]

... line anyone else does. Either you act on them, or you don't. Make up your mind how important they are to you, in this particular case as in any other case, try to resolve the issue by stating your position, and if that doesn't help, move on.

Developers are not a special case.

Have a spine fitted

[DrSkwid]

and make your choice

I've turned down plenty of work because it didn't fit with my politics.

And I've done plenty of work that didn't fit with my politics.

Your choice is similar.

MAKE IT YOURSELF.

Even better: Dostoevsky & Kierkegaard

[Ivan Matveich]

But while we're discussing Nietzsche, why not read his Genealology of Morals:

But let's go back: the problem with the other origin of the "good," of the good as the man of resentment has imagined it for himself, demands some conclusion. That lambs are annoyed at the great predatory birds is not a strange thing, and it provides no reason for holding anything against these large birds of prey, because they snatch away small lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves "These predatory birds are evil—and whoever is least like a predatory bird—and especially who is like its opposite, a lamb—shouldn't that animal be good?" there is nothing to find fault with in this setting up of an ideal, except for the fact that the birds of prey might look down with a little mockery and perhaps say to themselves "We are not at all annoyed with these good lambs—we even love them. Nothing is tastier than a tender lamb."

To demand that strength does not express itself as strength, that it must not consist of a will to overpower, a will to throw down, a will to rule, a thirst for enemies and opposition and triumph—that is as unreasonable as to demand that weakness express itself as strength. A quantum of force is just such a quantum of drive, will, action--indeed, it is nothing but these drives, willing, and actions in themselves—and it cannot appear as anything else except through the seduction of language (and the fundamental errors of reason petrified in it), which understands and misunderstands all action as conditioned by something which causes actions, by a "Subject."

In fact, in just the same way as people separate lightning from its flash and take the latter as an action, as the effect of a subject, which is called lightning, so popular morality separates strength from the manifestations of that strength, as if behind the strong person there is an indifferent substrate, which is free to manifest strength or not. But there is no such substrate, there is no "being" behind the doing, acting, becoming. "The doer" is merely invented after the fact—the act is everything. People basically duplicate the event: when they see lightning, well, that is an action of an action: they set up the same event first as the cause and then again as its effect.

Natural scientists are no better when they say "Force moves, force causes" and so on—our entire scientific knowledge, for all its coolness, its freedom from feelings, still remains exposed to the seductions of language and has not gotten rid of the changelings foisted on it, the "Subject" (the atom, for example, is such a changeling, like the Kantian "Thing in itself"): it's no wonder that the repressed, secretly smouldering feelings of rage and hate use this belief for themselves and, in fact, maintain a faith in nothing more strongly than in the idea that the strong are free to be weak and predatory birds are free to be lambs—and in so doing, they arrogate to themselves the right to blame the birds of prey for being birds of prey...

When the oppressed, the downtrodden, the conquered say to each other, with the vengeful cunning of the powerless, "Let us be different from evil people, namely, good! And that man is good who does not overpower, who hurts no one, who does not attack, who does not retaliate, who hands revenge over to God, who keeps himself hidden, as we do, who avoids all evil and demands little from life in general—like us, the patient, humble, and upright"—what that amounts to, coolly expressed and without bias, is essentially nothing more than "We weak people are merely weak. It's good if we do nothing, because we are not strong enough."

But this bitter state, this shrewdness of the lowest ranks, which even insects possess (for in great danger they stand as if they were dead in order not to do "too much"), has, thanks to the counterfeiting and self-deception of powerlessness, dressed

Re:Even better: Dostoevsky & Kierkegaard

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I already got all the Nietzsche I really need by refreshing The Nietzsche Family Circus webpage.

But then I'm prejudiced by what Jeeves had to say:

"'I think you would also have found her educational methods a little trying, sir. I have glanced at the book her ladyship gave you -- it has been lying on your table since our arrival -- and it is, in my opinion, quite unsuitable. You would not have enjoyed it. And I have it from her ladyship's own maid, who happened to overhear a conversation between her ladyship and one of the gentlemen staying here -- Mr Maxwell, who is employed in an editorial capacity by one of the reviews -- that it was her intention to start you almost immediately upon Nietzsche. You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound.'"

--P.G. Wodehouse, "Jeeves Takes Charge"

What grounds your principles?

[DoofusOfDeath]

If your moral principles are just grounded in the fact that some acts make you feel icky in a moral sense, then you have a hedonistic framework. In that case, if you think violating your principles will lead to more pleasure than sticking by them, go ahead. Although you'll want to consider the negative feelings of long-term guilt that you may incur for short-term pleasure, for example, cheating on your wife.

If your moral principles are grounded in a love of God, then that presumably trumps and pleasure seeking, and you should in all or almost all cases follow your conscience. But you'll still run into dilemmas about ends justifying means. For instance, I know of a guy who was running some camp in Thailand (I think. Maybe Cambodia. Anyway...) and he had to bribe local officials in order to get food. Neither option was totally guilt free.

If you believe in natural law ("some things are just right because they're right, even if there's no God"), then I'm not sure whether or not there's a reason for you to stick by your principles when doing so will be costly. You may want to use the hedonistic framework described above, because AFAIK natural law can prick your conscience, but will not pass judgment on you the way theists believe God will.

Regardless of what your grounds your morality, you should be aware that there's a huge difference between tactful and tactless approaches to dealing with other people in such situations. Try telling people why you don't want to be a part of it, NOT telling them that what they're doing is wrong and they must stop.

But be prepared that in most cases, when other people already know they're doing something wrong, they take offense when you won't join them because it reminds them that what they're doing is wrong. In those cases people will often call you judgmental or make fun of you, because they want that guilty feeling to go away. Handling these situations with grace is an art that hopefully you can learn without too much pain.

Not enough information...

[hummassa]

If Dwight just informed why he feels the site is about the exploitation of human beings, maybe I could step with a nice argument for him or for his boss...

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[TapeCutter]

"but at least you don't find abandoned ponies at the pound"

Shhhh, do you want people to know what's in dog food?

TFA: "How do developers handle moral dilemas?" - The same way "real" people do, principles are expensive, use them sparingly.

Leave the project

[Anonymous Coward]

This project obviously makes you uncomfortable, so if at all possible, you should stop working on it, whether that means being reassigned to a new project within your current job or having to look for a new one.

The fact that a lot of Slashdotters evidently don't think pornography to be immoral is laughably irrelevant to your case.

wonderful careers we all chose

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say this, but it's been my experience that a large portion of us chose careers that lend themselves to checking our morality at the door -- either we go where the money is, we find different work or we find someone else to support us while we revel in our high-ground.

This question (to me) rings of a soldier saying "They want to send me off to war. To fight! How can I go off and kill people? I didn't sign up for this!" (in nations with all-volunteer militaries)

Since (for the most part) our jobs have little to do with actually hurting people (i'd wager very few of us have legitemate jobs that involve stealing/maiming/killing or molesting) - do what you need to do to keep food on the table, and take advantage of the time that buys you to try to "steer" your management staff.

On the other hand, if you can find a good "morally/ethically pleasing" company to work for, screw those devil-pushers!

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[TapeCutter]

Why isn't the OP's tolerance enough, why is acceptance important, espesially from someone you don't know? And to paraphrase the GP, I would also like to know where the hell this "borg instinct" in humans came from? (We all have it, I'm not picking on you...,ok, I am a little bit. :)

The irony is that (so far) the "borg instinct" has resulted in a system where after 10,000yrs we cannot even agree to stop throwing high tech rocks at each other.

Moral Standards can lead to hard choices.

[Zachary Kessin]

Look you have to decide if you are OK with this or not, and if not ether move to a different project or find a new job. I have always said that there are things I would not do for a job due to my own ethical/moral and religious ideals. For refrence I am a religous Jew, as such I will not work on Shabbat and would not work to build say an Evangelical Christian website. In my current job this is not a problem. In fact my contract forbids me from working on Shabbat.

Sometimes the cost of living up to your moral standards is that you get to make a hard choice. As for what the issue is that you have a problem with don't worry what anyone else here says. If you feel it is a problem for you than it is.

Good Luck

There's an easy way

[lewp]

I find that being even more evil than your employer is a good way to avoid moral dilemmas.

I always wondered...

[Ksempac]

What the devs working for the majors on DRM or for spammers on new bots/worms/adware think about their jobs ?

Are they all people who only care about the money ?

I will probably never know the answer about this question, but still it bothers me.

One Response...

[Zelig]

I was once on a small contracting gig, web "distribution of a software package and
data updates". The customer was being vague about what data, exactly, was being
updated. Once I saw the design he had put on top of my code (Lottery analysis
software) I finished what we had in the queue, and told him I didn't want any more
work from him, and I didn't want my name associated with his work.

If you've got a wife and kids, all bets are off; but if not, tell the bosses
(politely) why you can't do whatever, and then go.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[mgblst]

Hey, If I am going to work in the Porn industry, there is only one job that I will do, and that aint creating slideshows in flash.

And I think it should be up to him to choose his morals, not you, what do you reckon. Maybe it is gay porn? Yeah, that made you think.

Now that's a cheap cop-out

[Moraelin]

So basically you're telling me that unless it's some grand-scale freedom or human rights issue, we should just ignore morals and ethics altogether? That, say, stealing from your neighbour or poisoning his dog is ok, because it's small compared to the issues of human rights violations in China?

I like to think you don't mean that. Because it would be a really shitty (and probably really short) life if everything was free-for-all as long as it's below the level of 1 billion people enslaved.

_Real_ morals exist at every level and in every moment of your life. And chances are you expect them from others, or take them for granted, every day. From the neighbours who _didn't_ scratch your car just because they could, to the gas station who didn't tweak its meters to show a gallon when you only filled 0.9 gallons, to the bank or investment fund who didn't just take all the money and one day and ran to East Bumfuckistan, or didn't tell you to buy the loser shares they were trying to dump quickly. Etc. At every step you take and every move to make, there were certain decisions involved, and chances are you expected them to be the ethical ones. You probably didn't expect to be robbed and cheated blind at every step, just because, hey, it's not a human rights or freedom issue, so it can't be real morals.

And, yes, there are a lot of valid moral questions that don't involve "oh, look, boobies" either.

E.g., I've been asked by one employer to basically abuse my consultant position to actively lie to a customer, and get them to buy stuff they didn't need and couldn't even use. (I refused, and that was the end of their using me as a consultant.) Is that OK in your book, just because it's not a human rights issue? Because in my set of morals it's not OK to abuse a relationship of trust like that.

Is it that impossible to do the right thing there? It seems to me that I'm making more money now at another company. And the ones who asked me to lie to customers went out of business in the meantime. I'm not sure it's related to their morals, because I can't say I was that interested to follow what happened with that company in detail. But it kinda makes you wonder.

E.g., take the case of a small company (it doesn't matter which, for the scope of this discussion) which some years back got caught doing a massive campaign of astro-turfing and sock-puppetry. Both to make it seem like all the smart guys are using their products, and actively trying to defame and discredit anyone who posted any criticism. Their excuse? "Well, MS is doing it too, we can't compete without doing the same", basically.

Is that ok just because it's not an outright human rights violation? I don't think so.

Is it really _impossible_ to do no harm in this industry, or is it that we've just become jaded and complacent? There are a ton of other industries where they compete on merits, marketting, etc, without outright lies and cheating. WTH makes software or IT that different? Why are we so eager to accept dishonest behaviour that would put one out of business in any other industry?

So...

[hrieke]

You appose building a web site tool that can display text and pictures on the basis that the text and or the pictures can be nudes?
Would you have invented the internet with the same believes? Television? Telephone? Photography? Printing Press? Alphabet? Art? Speach?

Look, man has been painting about naked women (and more) since the dawn of man, and writing about sex since the invention of writing.
Any technology can be used to do things that we disagree with, and that is just something that we all have to live with as creators and inventors of the technology- but we feel that the good outweights the bad.

If it helps, develop the program with photos of kittens and puppies, and givea donation to the local women's shelter.

Business is not a morally bounded pursuit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Engaging in capitalism is probably pretty immoral, depending on who you ask, as it's pretty ruthless (and sometimes requires people like you to do things you normally wouldn't).

Ethical dilemmas, on the other hand, might affect you quite a bit. If that's the case... stay where you are, at the bottom of the food chain. As a small business owner and partner in two other businesses, I can tell you that if you found yourself in any kind of management role that involved more than "OK, you... work on that, you... get me coffee, the rest of you take lunch," you'd be appalled at the things involved in actual, practical decision-making.

Say no more!

[mattwarden]

I'm curious to know how developers in the Slashdot community handle situations in which they are given a project that rubs against their moral borders. I was recently hired as a Flash developer

Woah there, fella. No need to continue. Get out as soon as you can.

Christian view of sex

[anomaly]

weird morality standards that Christianity has adopted over the eons: sex is bad
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian view. Sex is GOOD! As a Christian, let me tell you that I enjoy sex a great deal, and praise God for creating something so pleasurable!

and should only be done within marriage
This is true - because God knows that the best place to express sex and share this level of intimacy is inside marriage. everything else may feel good, but it's merely a cheap imitation of the greatness of sex with a spouse with whom you share deep emotional connection in addition to the physical stimulation. There are lots of reasons for this.

(like as if it was not God that gave us the sexual urges)
True, but just because it comes naturally, that doesn't mean that it's good. For example, when I'm in a hurry to get somewhere, and I get cut off in traffic by some SUV-driver talking on a cell phone, it's natural for me to want to run them off the road. Natural is not always good. There is a time and a place to use anger in a positive way. The Bible says "be angry but do not sin" in the same way that it says that sex is only for marriage.

but conquering, slaughtering, bribing and all the other good stuff that the western world does these days are acceptable
Each of these issues can rarely be boiled down to a platitude.
For example:
Is it wrong to stand up to defend either yourself or someone weaker? (I'd suggest that the "just war" theory says it's sometimes the morally right thing. I'd also suggest that we are doing that for the peope of Iraq, and should do it for the North Koreans and for the people of Darfur.)

Is killing always wrong? The 10 commandments say "do not murder" not "do not kill, ever" Sometimes it *is* morally right to kill.

Is it wrong to bribe corrupt officials to smuggle food to orphans? (Don't suggest this is ridiculous, I know where this happens.) I'd suggest it's not wrong.

YMMV, but IMNSHO - If I thought that "seeing a boob" was a big problem, I'd object to my wife breast feeding my kids. I don't, and she does. It's all about purpose and context. If your purpose is to use the other person for your pleasure, then you're doing something wrong - to yourself and to the other person.

Christians don't object to sex. In the context of marriage, I greatly enjoy my relationship with my wife - emotionally, spiritually, and physically. I enjoy seeing and touching her naked body, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's how God intended it to be, and it's a beautiful thing!

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:Christian view of sex

[master_p]

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian view. Sex is GOOD! As a Christian, let me tell you that I enjoy sex a great deal, and praise God for creating something so pleasurable!

Actually you are the one who twists reality. Sexual arousal comes from sexual imagery. A sexy woman, walking down the street, with a short dress and a nice smile can cause an erection...why? even if this woman is not your wife, you still get aroused! why?

let me tell you why: it's because nature is at work. God has nothing to do with that.

This is true - because God knows that the best place to express sex and share this level of intimacy is inside marriage. everything else may feel good, but it's merely a cheap imitation of the greatness of sex with a spouse with whom you share deep emotional connection in addition to the physical stimulation. There are lots of reasons for this.

Deep emotional connection has no relation either to sex or to marriage. You can have deep emotional connection from day 1 in a relationship, or you may never have, with or without being married.

True, but just because it comes naturally, that doesn't mean that it's good. For example, when I'm in a hurry to get somewhere, and I get cut off in traffic by some SUV-driver talking on a cell phone, it's natural for me to want to run them off the road. Natural is not always good. There is a time and a place to use anger in a positive way. The Bible says "be angry but do not sin" in the same way that it says that sex is only for marriage.

But nature is created 100% by God. So God is not good after all?

Each of these issues can rarely be boiled down to a platitude. For example: Is it wrong to stand up to defend either yourself or someone weaker? (I'd suggest that the "just war" theory says it's sometimes the morally right thing. I'd also suggest that we are doing that for the peope of Iraq, and should do it for the North Koreans and for the people of Darfur.)

I know your post is a joke, but even if it is, it's still worthy of a reply.

You are not in Iraq to help the Iraqis and please stop the hypocrisy. Open your eyes and watch something else than Fox and CNN. You are in Iraq in order to encircle Iran, create two controlled states (Shiites and Shunites) and ultimately control the resources of the region. Have you seen the pictures where Saddam shakes hands with the US president? back then Saddam was a friend...

Is killing always wrong? The 10 commandments say "do not murder" not "do not kill, ever" Sometimes it *is* morally right to kill.

Now I know your post is a joke. But even as a joke, it is pathetic. Jesus said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Which means no one has a right to kill another one, because no one is without sin.

YMMV, but IMNSHO - If I thought that "seeing a boob" was a big problem, I'd object to my wife breast feeding my kids. I don't, and she does. It's all about purpose and context. If your purpose is to use the other person for your pleasure, then you're doing something wrong - to yourself and to the other person.

Why is it wrong? you don't give an argument.

Christians don't object to sex. In the context of marriage, I greatly enjoy my relationship with my wife - emotionally, spiritually, and physically. I enjoy seeing and touching her naked body, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's how God intended it to be, and it's a beautiful thing!

I think the joke with religions should stop...at last, we are at an age that we, as humanity, must make a step forward and declare all our gods dead.

in this case, its quite clear..

[zen-theorist]

since you are developing content that is beneficial to your fellow slashdotters, you are morally justified to deliver the work. promptly. although it does not offset the fact that you are working in Flash, you can rectify that by posting a few free membership passwords here.

Submitter already made his decision

[NewWorldDan]

If it's not enough to quit over, just shut up and do your job. Telling your boss that you don't want to do the project because you dissapprove of it will just get you flagged as a whiner and maybe fired. In submitters boss' position, that's what I'd do. Anyone that wasn't top talent would be fired and replaced. Now, if you're a great worker and a great talent, this is still something that will come back to bite you come review time and may cost you a raise. So either do the work like a pro or go somewhere else. And submitter has already stated that while he disapproves, it's not enough to refuse to do the work. The money is more important than his principles.

Salvor Hardin said...

[Pig Hogger]

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!"

-- Salvor Hardin

I once totally trashed a company. Completely. Utterly. 50 employees on the street.

I completely destroyed the data on the central computer and the backups.

I was asked to make the company violate the election financing act (Companies cannot contribute to political parties). They wanted me to stealthily add to the payroll (so employees would not notice) the maximum contribution permissible for each employee, in their name. In reality, the company gave 50 times the legal contribution to a party that has been convicted many times of election fraud in the past (I'll name it: the liberal party of Québec).

Without any system functionning, the company was soon unable to perform properly, and I used connections in the tax department to have an audit forced on the company, to which they weren't able to comply... The owner eventually lost his home...

And to drive the point home, I made sure the owner of the company knew full well what happenned and for what reason...

worst moral dilema

[Darth_Burrito]

The key is to find some work place that is more in line with your moral values.

After getting layed off in the bust, with little experience, I found a job working as a developer for a local technology company. The boss was something of a prick and he was very into controlling and monitoring things. Anyways, he had some very aggressive filters installed on our proxy. Like all filtering software, this software sucked. It didn't block a lot of what it was supposed to and it did block a lot of what it shouldn't. At some point, the boss decided employing bad blocking software was not enough. He wanted to be able to see a weekly report that showed every site every employee in his department visited and for a similar report to be sent out to every manager in the company. This assignment, he gave to me.

Writing this 1984-esque report has always been, in my mind, one of the worst things I've ever been asked to do. But if I quit the job then, I'd be broke with a new lease to break (again). So I wrote the damn report and did a fairly good job of it. About 2 weeks after the report went live, a manager noticed his account was being used "by someone" to surf porn. In this case, the person had spent about 10-15 minutes on some scantilly clad biker babe site. They traced it to some guy working in the distribution facility and fired him.

Did they have the right guy? How long had he worked there? Did he have a family to support? Was it really the manager? Who knows...? All I really know is some guy got fired for reasons I don't entirely agree with because of a report I wrote.

On one hand, I have always regretted making that report, but on the other hand refusing to do so would probably have resulted in me being fired after having moved to a new city for the job, breaking a second lease in a year, etc. I ended up quiting for other/additional reasons about 7 months later (after I had some financial footing).

Now I work in a university for substantially less pay than I would make in the private sector. And while I occassionally disagree with some policy here, people tend to be more in line with my morals, and I've never had a dilema at all like the one at my old company.

So my advice is this. If you can get out of the assignment, do so. If you can't and you can afford to quit and you think it's that morally objectionable, then quit. If not, do the assignment and, if you think there is more to come, start looking for another job that will be more in line with your morals.

Bonhoeffer would see it that way too

[palladiate]

Funny you didn't mention him. He had a good answer to your Anne Frank question. He was involved in the German resistance and the plot to assassinate Hitler despite being a very religious man. He spent a great deal of time in prison for his beliefs against Nazism. He eventually died from it too. The Wikipedia entry on him is too sparse for my liking, but you can still see it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

Re:Bonhoeffer would see it that way too

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I was unaware of Bonhoeffer until now. Thanks for the link.

Once at my work...

[Secret Rabbit]

... one of the employees (sales guy) wanted me to make a program to make his job easier. It was to aquire email addresses from web pages so that he could then send sales emails to people. I said it was possible but I'd have to think about it.

At the time I was the general purpose guy, so I kept a list of tasks on "the big board" in my office. I put this one on it, crossed it out and wrote "ethics" beside it.

When the boss came in to add to my list he asked me about the "ethics thing" on the list. I explained to him what the sales guy wanted and that for ethical reasons I couldn't create an email harvester. He just gave me a strange look and walked out.

The funny part is that he went to another co-worker (one of my buddies) and he gave an almost word for word reason why he couldn't do it.

Our boss was somewhat fustrated but didn't persue it further.

So, basically depending on your boss, a simple explination can go a long way.

Sexism

[emil10001]

Why must the idea of sexism be tied to the idea of Christianity?

In Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground," the 'Underground Man' chastises the young prostitute at the brothel. He is not a Christian, but sees that she is being exploited. In this particular situation, she chose to go to this place, do this kind of work, and claims to be ok with it. But, as he finds out, she really has no idea what that place takes away from her. She was simply looking for a way to repay a debt that she had, and to get away from her family. She thinks that she is in charge of her own will, even though she has no choice when somebody walks in the door with some money, and requests to see her. She will live a short, disparate life, that will leave her alone and forgotten in the end.

But since we are all dependent on this style of society and things aren't gonna change soon, here is a more down to earth approach: do your job you were instructed to do, and let social services deal with the morals. That's their job, and today's society has specialized authorities just for those things.

That is just about the most braindead thing I've heard this week. Thanks for reminding me once again why things continue to get worse in this country: everybody expects somebody else to change the situation for them. Oh, and who the hell is "social services"? And do you really want them "dealing with these things"?

Re:Sexism

[master_p]

In Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground," the 'Underground Man' chastises the young prostitute at the brothel. He is not a Christian, but sees that she is being exploited.

Exploited in what way? do you mean that she does something she does not want to? not true, since she wanted to be a prostitute in the first place. Perhaps she does not get paid much? then she can do another profession.

Prostitutes, porn stars and other professions of the porn industry are exploited no more than the average industrial worker...the added value goes in the pockets of those who possess the means of production!

That is just about the most braindead thing I've heard this week. Thanks for reminding me once again why things continue to get worse in this country: everybody expects somebody else to change the situation for them. Oh, and who the hell is "social services"? And do you really want them "dealing with these things"?

Then I suppose we should defend ourselves from thieves and robbers as well...let's all have a gun under our pillow, just in case. And now that we are at it, let's be the prosecutor and judge as well!

You see, organized societies don't work like that. As a citizen, you sign a social contract that all citizens must obey to, and that is to respect the laws and all citizens are equal against the law...and that equality can be achieved only when laws are applied uniformly by an institution...in other words, you can't take the law in your hand!

Re:Sexism

[emil10001]

It doesn't sound like you've read "Notes from Underground." Liza didn't want to be a prostitute, just the same way I'm sure girls today don't grow up thinking "I want to be a porn star." My guess is that some of them end up there out of necessity. In Liza's case she had some debt to the brothel she was at, who she repaid with her service. She was not paid, she got room and board, and service against her debt. She pretended that she was ok with it, and that it empowered her, but that was a facade. She probably could have managed another way out, but the "Underground Man" was in no position to help her himself.

Also, I was in no way implying that I felt that these people are exploited, what I was doing was simply pointing out that the idea of sexism, and exploitation can be removed from the idea of religion.

As far as your comment about the "social services," yes, that is dumb. While I agree that there must be a line drawn between the actions you take and what you allow for the police, etc., I disagree entirely with the idea that it is "out of our hands." That is lazy, and dangerous. If you were being robbed, would you show the robber to your safe, and open it for them? would you sit there quietly and not say anything? If they were unarmed, would you try and stop them? In some states, it is legal for you to shoot and kill a trespasser on your property, and in most it is perfectly legal for you to defend yourself in the best way possible to neutralize the threat. Once you have been robbed, have fun dealing with the police, and explain to them why you left the door unlocked, and why you opened the safe for the crook too!

If you don't take a stand where it is appropriate to do so, and leave it up to somebody else, then what is the point of having values and morals. There is no excuse really for not speaking up when it is appropriate to do so, and leaving it up to the "authorities" is weak, and it is a cop-out. That is a part of your contract as a citizen.

The "Underground Man" by the way, shows us the way not to live, he does everything wrong, and makes a fool of himself. But, at least he makes a fool of himself, instead of saying nothing at all.

Re:Sexism

[master_p]

iza didn't want to be a prostitute, just the same way I'm sure girls today don't grow up thinking "I want to be a porn star." My guess is that some of them end up there out of necessity. In Liza's case she had some debt to the brothel she was at, who she repaid with her service. She was not paid, she got room and board, and service against her debt. She pretended that she was ok with it, and that it empowered her, but that was a facade. She probably could have managed another way out, but the "Underground Man" was in no position to help her himself.

That's no different than a man not wanting to be a worker but not being able to do anything else.

I disagree entirely with the idea that it is "out of our hands." That is lazy, and dangerous. If you were being robbed, would you show the robber to your safe, and open it for them? would you sit there quietly and not say anything?

Protecting my property is different from protecting the properties of others. I am not supposed to take action for other people; I am not entitled to do that; that's police's job.

In some states, it is legal for you to shoot and kill a trespasser on your property, and in most it is perfectly legal for you to defend yourself in the best way possible to neutralize the threat. Once you have been robbed, have fun dealing with the police, and explain to them why you left the door unlocked, and why you opened the safe for the crook too!

You accidentally felt into my line of thought! you said that "in some states, it is legal for you to shoot and kill a trespasser"...well, that is what I am saying all along: the powers to the individual shall be given by the social contract that the state represents.

If you don't take a stand where it is appropriate to do so, and leave it up to somebody else, then what is the point of having values and morals. There is no excuse really for not speaking up when it is appropriate to do so, and leaving it up to the "authorities" is weak, and it is a cop-out. That is a part of your contract as a citizen.

Taking a stand is different from taking action. You can take a stand on anything, as long as you don't mess with people in ways that are undesirable. If one takes up your way of thinking, then it is good to play Charles Bronson, take guns and go out and clean the streets! something that is illegal in every law system on this planet...

SPEAK UP!

[baudbarf]

Speak up, sooner rather than later.

This happened recently to me. Little bits of a project started coming down the pipe at me, and it was simply expected that I'd play along. I could see that it was going to develop into my next full-time project, and it was something I could not, in good conscience, contribute to.

I e-mailed my manager explaining my objection. Mind you, I didn't say that anybody else should not be working on it - I spoke on my own behalf, as an individual whose conscience wouldn't allow him to take part in an activity.

My manager "agreed to disagree," and put me on another project.

I think that a key point here is that I made my feelings known rather than trying not to "rock the boat" by keeping quiet until I just couldn't stand it anymore. If I'd done that, the answer likely would have been,"Well, if you really object to this, why have you done so much for it already!?" ...and they'd have a point.

What to do... what to do...

[frank_adrian314159]

I'm curious to know how developers in the Slashdot community handle situations in which they are given a project that rubs against their moral borders.

Well, you can stop working for SuSE for starters...

Streeeeetch~

[Anonymous Coward]

Reach further, little troll.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[Millenniumman]

As an aside, "ending up like RMS" would hardly be anything to be ashamed of. The world would be a lot better off if more of us had the courage to take his route.You mean having no job, no home, and living off of fame which is based on ridiculous beliefs and behavior.

Oh really?

[Moraelin]

One of these choices has a future... and let me add that "quitting because of a moral choice" doesn't look good on a resume or in an interview

Oh really? Guess it's funny then. I made sure to tell all my prospective employers, including the one I currently work for, about how I refused to lie to a customer when an ex-boss requested that. The funny thing is that I've had no problem finding well paid jobs for people who didn't have a problem with that. Some found that there were plenty of other jobs in their organization, where I don't have to talk to a customer at all. And some actually said some version of, "well, see, that's exactly what we want anyway. We want the customers to be happy and trusting of us, not to pull a quick scam and get that kind of a reputation."

So it seems to me that the moral choice had a pretty good future too, so far. _And_ wasn't a liability in job interviews either.

What you probably _don't_ want on your resume is something like "I abruptly resigned in the middle of a project because I suddenly realized I don't like it." But that's not really a moral high ground to start with. If you leave over a moral choice, do make sure you do fulfill your contractual obligations, get your replacement trained, etc, and generally leave on good terms.

But "I find X and Y morally wrong"? There are plenty of jobs were you don't have to do either X or Y. There are jobs where X or Y would be actually bad for business.

That applies to softcore porn as well. Now I'm not against it personally, but I seriously can't see someone's "I don't want to work on porn projects" as being that much of a liability either. There are plenty of companies which don't really have anything to do with porn of any kind. There are plenty of companies which (regardless of what Joe Manager or Jack Owner do at home), try to maintain an image of being family- and community-friendly, upstanding pillars of the community, and all that PR image stuff.

More people have been fired _because_ of becoming associated with porn (e.g., women employees who thought it might be fun to start posing naked all over the place), or caused quite a nasty backlash against the company by doing so, than because of having something against it. So if a prospective employee is against porn? Good. Then they've just told you that you won't have to deal with the fallout of suddenly discovering that they've become an "amateur" gay porn star in their free time.

Sure, you might lose one or two options on the whole, by putting that in your resume. But it's not the end of the world. And if you actually _have_ those moral principles, it's probably the options you didn't want in the first place. The choices which you'd either refuse anyway, or where you'd be fairly unhappy anyway.

On the other hand, if you're really more worried about an extra buck or two than about upholding your ethical principles, then you didn't really have ethical principles to start with. "I think X is wrong only as long as I can't get paid an extra buck to do X" isn't a moral principle in the first place. It's at best a lie to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy about yourself.

common sense?

[bmimatt]

Seems like you have at least somve control ver the creative side of the project - be creative. Come up with something that both sides can be happy with; you with the amount of nudity shown and your bosses/clients with the overall appeal.

I was fortunate

[olclops]

I work as a copywriter at an ad agency. Several years ago, my boss handed me an assignment for Clear Channel. I just looked at the client on the job brief and handed it back to him, saying, "There are very few companies I hate more than them" and walked off. Never had any repercussions. He could have made my life pretty hard, but he respected where I was coming from not everyone is as fortunate. But the thing that made it easy for me was there was no moral gray area in my mind. No self-debating, it was a knee jerk, "I hate them, no, I'm not doing it" right at the beginning of the assignment. I'm the first to admit, hell, I'm in advertising - there's lots of fuzzy ethics, and when the lines are blurrier for me, I tend to swallow my moral objections and do my job.

Oh please

[Moraelin]

Oh, fucking please. He didn't say he owns the same company that he quit from. And he certainly didn't say he was swiping computer parts.

So whatever "it's good to not have morals" crusade you're on, I'm sure you can find less lame ways to support it than baseless "selling old computer parts you swipe from work doesn't really qualify as a business" accusations.

Maybe you just really don't have morals. Good for you. By all means, stick to that, then. But some of us do and still have a good job anyway. Some of us did leave jobs we didn't like (for ethical or other reasons)... and just found a better job instead. Go figure. Not all jobs require being a spineless minion to the biggest sociopath available.

In fact, sometimes a better job than the insecurity/denial guys trying to rationalize their taking shit and being used.See, the funny thing is, the PHB's who can operate an unethical business, usually don't show much more empathy to their employees either.

And _especially_ if your reason is "but I won't find another job if I quit", I'd strongly advise you to rethink and reevaluate it all again. Don't tell me whether it was true or not, tell it to yourself in the mirror. Do you actually believe it? Really? Again, don't tell me, tell it to yourself.

Because in all cases I've seen, it wasn't true. It was just a case of a sociopath PHB keeping a _good_ employee in line by crushing their self-esteem and sense of security.

So was it your own idea, or did someone (directly or indirectly) give you an idea along the lines of, "If you quit working for me, you'll never find another job at your age / in this economy / whatever"? Because if it was someone else, rest assured that it was a lie. The kind who'd keep you in line with that kind of a lie, would replace you at the drop of a hat, if they actually thought there are better people than you available cheaper in the unemployed pool. If you actually were too expensive / old / unskilled / unable to learn / whatever for the job, then the same kind of boss would have already replaced you long ago. (And it would be only business, so don't take it as necessarily criticizing them.) Rest assured that all the "be thankful to me that you have a job at all" BS is just a lie to keep you too scared to grow a spine or a pair of balls. They're _not_ doing you a favour, they're only doing themselves a favour with that lie.

mod up

[werewolf1031]

Spot on, dude.

And while we're on it:

And the ones who asked me to lie to customers went out of business in the meantime. I'm not sure it's related to their morals...

I'd say most likely yes, it was because of their unethical behavior -- or at least their treatment of customers was no doubt a factor in their own demise. Customers won't put up with being lied to, and they certainly won't come back to a company for services after being burned once, whether it's consulting or any other service or retail or whatever. They don't stand for that shit, and they shouldn't have to.

Well

[tsanth]

At least you're consistent to your personal moral compass.

Been there

[Beek Dog]

I was at an ad agency and one of the partner's friends had recently put out a book called "Moral Mandate to Vote", a pile of uber-right garbage. I did the site, being the web developer, even though I thought it was BS, but put my foot down when they wanted me to post a pic of a fetus grabbing a doc's finger. I told them someone else would have to do it. They were a little surprised that I said that, but then they had someone else do it. I guess I had that 'rare talent'. Or maybe they didn't want to go through a hiring/firing over one image.

Put your foot down and roll with the punches. Sure, Top Ramen is pretty gross and not very nutritional, but you'll have a sense of pride while you eat it.

There are advantages to taking the high road

[phamlen]

I can just say that, from my own experience, you CAN get a lot of satisfaction from making an ethical change.

I went from working at a "dot com" that always seemed to me to be one step away from a pyramid scheme to working for a relatively well-known non-profit. I didn't realize how big an impact it would have. Everytime I went to a party or had to explain my job anywhere, people thought it was good that I was working for a non-profit that was trying to make the world better.

I know it seems trite, but it makes a big difference in your life when you can explain what you do and people respect it. Admittedly I made less money but I was glad I switched.

[Important caveat: not all non-profits are great. Some are remarkably disfunctional. If you're interviewing, make sure to talk to people about how they REALLY make organizational decisions. It make a big difference to be at a good non-profit. ]

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[multimediavt]

Here, here! I agree. The original poster didn't ask for unethical responses to questions of morality (which many respondents offered up [rolls eyes]). He asked for professional responses to personal concerns of morality related to projects in the workplace. Frankly, the answer *is* quite simple. If the place you are working for accepts projects that *you* feel are morally questionable you have three options:

1. Do the work, but do not have your name associated with it publicly in any form. (I've done this)
2. Ask to be put on another project while you look for employment elsewhere. (I've done this)
3. Resign and find work elsewhere. (I've done this, too)

Flash work is not hard to come by, especially if you live in a major metro area (or have contacts). There is plenty of ethical and morally grounded work out there for talented Flash developers. There is no reason why anyone should have to work for an organization that doesn't share similar ethics or morals (they aren't the same by the way).

I'm a web dev whore. I admit it, but there are some personal moral boundaries that I won't cross. One of them was passing on a big contract for Phillip Morris. Said no. No hesitation, no further discussion. But, I've also done work for companies that I thought were unethical, but not immoral. Those are usually the ones I refuse to put my name on. I'll do the work, and take their dirty money, but I'm not telling a soul I did the work for them. I've also just flat out been handed a project by an employer and asked not to be involved, and if that's the type of situation you're in, it's up to you to suck it up and take responsibility for your actions. If that means you quit and eat Ramen noodles for six weeks while you find another gig, then that's what you have to do to sleep at night. It's your call.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[UncleTogie]

Like many others here, I see no harm in a bared breast, but there are a LOT of groups/religions that INSIST on various moral standards for their followers. Just because *I* don't: wear a burqa/handle snakes/speak in tongues/want porn banned/avoid animal products doesn't mean that somehow I've the right to pass judgement on those who do. I'm firmly convinced this is one of humankind's biggest follies: Paying FAR too much attention to a few minor differences, while ignoring our myriad similarities.

Honest Question

[tsanth]

[Extramarital sex] may feel good, but it's merely a cheap imitation of the greatness of sex with a spouse with whom you share deep emotional connection in addition to the physical stimulation. There are lots of reasons for this. What are these "lots of reasons" of which you speak?

Integrity

[Anonymous Coward]

Your family and friends will respect you a lot more if they know you declined the job for reasons of personal moral integrity.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say you made your choice when you started your willing participation. You took on the job and now have a duty to see it through. This goes double if it, as the OP says, is a small company that will be hurt badly by a late defection.

Without knowing specifics, I would say that you are always making a choice. You have no "duty" to do (or finish) something you find immoral.

Check your contract. Mine says I can leave at any time for any reason. If yours is the same, then nobody's making you stay (else they would have put that in the contract!). Often it's common to give 2 weeks' notice, but I don't know if that's contractual or just etiquette.

If you're at a small company which can't survive one Flash developer leaving a project of questionable morality, it deserves to die, anyway.

Quit

[RexDevious]

I am lead programmer at a design company. I was brought on when the studio was doing work for non-profits, who's purpose was not at odds with my own values. My projects when great, we won lots of awards, and then a bunch of other companies started soliciting our business. Some of these, although very well funded, were think tanks that were diametrically opposed to my own values. The head of our company suggested that we charge these guys through the nose, and use the excess profits to fund causes we agreed with. While there was a certain logic to that, I said that I would simply not work for these companies - regardless of how it was handled. I was calm about it, it was just something I couldn't bring myself to do. I *love* my work, and I love doing a job for people that really goes beyond what they ever expected in terms of quality, functionality, and stability. If I were to be working on behalf of causes that went against my own values completely - I would no longer enjoy my work. As work is a huge part of my life, this is too big of a sacrifice to make. I'd rather work a retail store stocking shelves than program for people who'd, frankly, just as soon see people like me in ovens.

My company ultimately turned down the business. I don't know if was because they didn't feel they could take the work without my help, or if my attitude made it easier to not sell out their own values.

The point is, you should take great pride in your work and your life. Not only for how you do it, but for how it affects your world. I believe that doing that will give you a much happier life than more money will. But then again, I haven't really tried the alternative yet.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey, If I am going to work in the Porn industry, there is only one job that I will do, and that aint creating slideshows in flash"

I know, I know! A fluffer. Am I right?

You call that a moral dilemma?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're basically not comfortable with the level of clothing on people portrayed in videos on your employer's website. Assuming that the people appearing in the videos were not coerced into it, I don't see a problem.

I was expecting something like "I'm expected to implement DRM systems" or SIM locks for phones. That clothing thing is just ridiculous.

Moral backbone...you have a choice

[CaptainTux]

If you really feel that it's offensive to your morals then you have a very simple choice before you: bend your morals and do the work (sell out for the money) or stand by what you believe and respectfully refuse to perform the work then go find something else. I know that can be very hard to do when money is tight and you *really* need the work but, at some point, you have to have a backbone and take a stand. Being moral is easy when your morals aren't tested and you're not pushed to cross them. What really defines your morality is how you handle yourself when they are challenged or you're tempted.

Libertarian moderators can suck my left nut

[spun]

Hey, mod this down too, assholes. I have more karma than I can possibly burn through. That's the libertarian way: stifle any dissent and call it a consensus. You obviously can not refute anything I have to say, and are so scared of other people reading it and understanding what a crock of shit your failed iddeology is that you must mod me down.

Well, I have made tons of anti-libertarian posts for the last ten years on Slashdot and for the most part they get modded up because most sensible people can see how ludicrous libertarianism is. I will continue to make anti-libertarian posts and get modded up for them. Try as you might, you can't make black into white and you can't make libertarianism into something sensible, logical, or workable.

Why is libertarianism the only political ideology that has never been tried in the real world? Two reasons: first, libertarians are all such selfish assholes that you could never get a group of them to agree on what libertarianism is, let alone put it into practice. Second, libertarians know that as long as libertarianism remains purely theoretical, they can go on being theoretically right. As soon as it was put into practice, the world would see it as the failure it is and libertarians would have to shut the fuck up.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[Arker]

The point is that there's a difference between moral concerns and religious or pseudo-religious taboos. It may well be possible to make a mistake of putting too much emphasis on minor differences, but it would also be a mistake to allow religious psychosis to be passed off as morality without objection as well.

Re:No, YOU'RE missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, the company going overseas is also hiring 200 workers, so it's only a "moral dilemma" if you believe that hiring Indians instead of Americans is evil. Sorry, not seeing it.

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[wikinerd]

I would really want to end up like RMS.

goanfukyourself, for short.

[KZigurs]

No seriously. Please be nice and decide whether you are a professional or a PFY trying to decide whether you actually enjoy (aka: have a clue) what you are doing.

If you are in there because of the money and because you know what you are doing. DO IT.

If you are there because they miraculously accepted you CV and this is your first employer - GET THE FUCK LOST NOW. And better do not take up any work ever again. If you are having a problem now, you will most certainly have it later. And from experience the only people that have moral problems are the one that are incapable to deliver - the rest just delivers and gets their fix & reason to live from that (and money, but then it's just a matter of being able to afford to work without thinking or being offset by about the bills).

Office Space

[Bobbolytic]

Be like Milton at Innatech.

I once...

[GWBasic]

I once slowly realized that I disagreed with the moral implications of a job. It was a case where I realized that the fruits of my labor could be used to make drugs that could potentially harm someone. I kept the job.

I later went to work for a major corporation that I consider a moral do-gooder. Very quickly on my job I realized that the fruits of my labor could be used to build a nuclear bomb and that they would be used to create hate propganda. (My employer makes general-purpose computer products.)

Ultimatly, anything I create can be used to do evil. It can also be used to do good. I hope that the people using my creations make the right choice, but there is no way to force them to do so.

The Christian Response

[Gastrobot]

You need to follow your conscience on this. One is justified toward God according to his faith. You obviously do not have faith in this matter (and rightly so, I say). The apostle Paul gets at this when he speaks by the Holy Spirit, and teaches the Corinthian Christians concerning eating food sacrificed to idols, which some thought was wrong and others didn't: "However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled." (1 Corinthians 8:7) But some things are clear cut moral issues. For instance, one can't commit adultery, regardless of what their beliefs about it toward God are. I would say that your situation sounds like one of those instances. Don't be part of men or women selling their bodies to anyone with an internet connection. Regarding the money, serve God faithfully, giving up whatever you need to, and be faithful to him for your daily bread. Better to be poor on earth and store up treasures in heaven. And sometimes God may expect us to live in abject poverty for the sake of our convictions, but "For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him." 2 Chronicles 16:9 (NKJV) James speaks with zeal toward those Christians who are too attached to the world. "Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." James 4:4 (NKJV) 'O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open. Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: " I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." Therefore " Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you." " I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty."' 2 Corinthians 6:11-18 (NKJV) It seems hard, and the enemy may try to make you ashamed for standing up for morals in a world where money is more important, but have this encouragement: "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it." 1 Corinthians 10:12-13 (NKJV) dudcolony @ yahoo dot com

Parallel situation?

[bscott]

For years I held a job as the database administrator of a national charity. The database was central to their fundraising efforts, and the charity was dedicated to causes I (and I think most people) believe in. I was not fully qualified for the job - I did my best and learned a lot, but in my time I made some mistakes that probably pissed off a number of donors. I feel bad about them to this day, even though I told them they really needed someone better-trained.

(in the past I made mistakes due to being underqualified, as a database admin for a private company, but I didn't feel so guilty - I was up-front about needing training which they never provided, so not listening to me only affected their bottom-line...)

But more recently I've been employed by that same charity for a job I AM qualified to do - and yet not being allowed to do my job fully. Just for one of several examples, I tell them repeatedly that I need help testing various aspects of the software; many incidents from the past point to the fact that I'm too close to the software to catch everything by myself. They ignore me and publish unready software, the results gained by which can actually affect people's lives.

They're my best employer but I'm having a hard time taking money when - well, where ARE the ethical lines here?

(and yeah, I get employed at jobs above my training level now and then; sue me for being good at job interviews!)

The Ethics of Star Trek

[NumberGod]

Here you go...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060933267

You mean...

[NerveGas]

Do you mean a situation like this??

Re:Well, for those of us who care about REAL moral

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean we're allowed to object to the way you're passing of your anti-religious psychosis as morality? What you smugly and self-righteously dismiss as a "taboo" may very well qualify as a true moral concern.

What would I do?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be more vague in the slashdot post I made.
file:///usr/share/ubuntu-artwork/home/index.hstml
If that's possible.

Sorry for the delay

[anomaly]

Life intervened. :)

The list I am about to send is by no means complete. My wife and I discussed this over the weekend. Here are some reasons why marital sex while emotionally connected to your spouse is far superior to any other sexual experience.

1. At its essence, sexual expression in this way is self-less. Other sex is selfish. Does that mean that there's not something in it for me? Of course not, but if I'm really connected to my wife, I want to satisfy her at least as much as I want to have an orgasm. Her expression with me is selfless, too. Her participation is about wanting to satisfy me deeply.

2. When we're emotionally connected, we're more focused on purposefully making the time and place for intimacy in our lives. That means that if she's "ready for action" and I'm not, I'll make the "sacrifice" of making her a priority, and she will do the same for me.

3. When we're married, monogamous, and emotionally connected, we're deeply invested in studying each other. I want to learn what pleases her, and she *feels* *safe* being open about what she wants, and how I can improve as a lover to better satisfy her. For most women, the importance of this point cannot be overstated. Her feeling safe emotionally with her lover is fundamental to her overall comfort as a woman. This means that she *trusts* me to accept her, flaws and all, and *value* her for the qualities that make her an incredible person. You cannot overestimate the extent to which most women feel unsafe in their skin because they are constantly compared to porn, magazine covers, fashion models, TV and movie actresses. Helping her feel safe with me *cannot* happen in a one-night stand, and it won't happen in an uncommitted long-term sexual relationship.

4. Her safety (and mine) make for a better "palette" on which to paint the kind of picture that the other wants. Whether that means cuddling with her, holding her hand, having "fast food" sex, or a multi-course "meal" of sexual intimacy - we can learn about each other and how to participate in a way that is rich for both of us. This changes over time, and as we grow old together we will continually be learning about ourselves and about each other.

5. Orgasm always feels good, but when combined with commitment, length of relationship and emotional connectedness, it comes with a sense of safety and peace for both people. Most women don't orgasm every time they have sex, but I'd suggest that the odds of inducing physiological stimulus required for her to have an orgasm are substantially improved. Regardless of whether she has an orgasm (that's likely not a significant factor in her sexual satisfaction, BTW) her overall view of the experience is far improved, and thus her interest in future participation is improved as well.

I could go on, but suffice to say that I'm into great sex, and that requires *substantially* more than merely putting my erect penis into some available vagina. The sexual experience, security, and satisfaction that I have with my wife far surpasses any imaginable sex in any other context. (And I'm a pretty creative guy.)

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:Sorry for the delay

[tsanth]

Thank you for your response. It is certainly appreciated.

That said, I still fail to see how any of these points are exclusive to married sexuality. What it appears to be to me is that you're describing a set of behaviors and purpose that one could find in any monogamous, dedicated, unmarried sexual relationship. I fail to see any distinction between these "marriage-specific" behaviors you are describing and behaviors between two unmarried people who have been having committed sexual relations for several years.

Again, thanks for the response. At least now I've got an idea of what behavior and thinking you consider to be exclusive to marriage.

Marriage-specific?

[anomaly]

Let's talk for a minute about that. In a rational, non-emotional world, I think that your thesis about unmarried sex having the same "performance characteristics" as married sex would be valid. However, we are emotional beings, and as such, these emotions play a much larger part in our life experiences than we'd ever like to admit.

I'd submit to you that the act of marriage, and the expected commitment that entails, establishes a fundamental shift in attitudes, expectations and emotions between two people. This is particularly evident in a woman's sexuality. There's a reason that men refer to having sex as "getting lucky." Most of the time, men really have little idea about what motivates a woman to be excited about intercourse.

Based on my experience, freedom and frequency of sexual expression, (inside and outside of marriage, as well as in counseling couples who are struggling in their marriages) is directly tied to how a woman feels about herself, and that is profoundly impacted by her security in the context of relationship to her man. When the level of commitment and acceptance is high, she is safe, and feels more open about sharing herself freely. When the level of commitment is low, why should she take risks with the man who is presently accompanying her?

You may argue that an unmarried couple can have the same level of emotional connection and commitment that a married couple has. I'd suggest that is possible but unlikely. Even if the man feels that he has the same attitude, self-sacrifice and commitment whether married or unmarried, a woman (in almost all cases) does not. She feels secure and valued when she sees tangible evidence of commitment.

Frankly I'd also submit to you that it's not merely "a piece of paper." The marital commitment in almost every case brings with it a change of attitude from "is this the fight that breaks us up?" to "We have to work this out. We're married."

I believe that the root cause of most divorce is frustration. Most couples are completely ignorant of conflict resolution skills and emotional insight about how the individual works. As a result, they fumble through unresolved conflict after unresolved conflict until they get fed up and quit because they see no other viable option. This is the tragedy that most adversely affects modern culture.

Thanks for listening.

*puts soapbox away* :)

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Emotions and Rationality

[tsanth]

I am growing to understand your viewpoint more and more.

I'll accept that in the general case, the act of changing status to married does indeed cause couples to undergo a fundamental shift in attitude and emotion, though my reasoning is probably different from yours. I'm of the opinion that society (religion, tradition, what-have-you) has trained both men and women to look at marriage as a secure bond: a social contract, if you will, that gives both partners an added level of comfort when dealing with each other, i.e. "we're married, so we now have such-and-such additional responsibilities to each other; let's work this out."

You are correct: my argument is indeed that an unmarried couple can have that same level of connection and commitment as any given unmarried couple. I do agree that, given the standard westernized upbringing, the act of marriage facilitates a shift in attitude toward one of having to work things out, versus having to call it quits. What I infer from your comments is that you believe the incidence of this attitude to be higher in married couples than in non-married couples. Assuming that this is your claim: having no numbers to back me up, I must simply say that I'm skeptical.

<soapbox>In my experience, a couple needs to both make a commitment toward having open communication about problems, then to actively (key word) work at keeping communication open. Marriage impresses upon a couple that they "must" work things out, but if they mutually have the inner steel to take that extra step without having to get married, they can certainly get by without the title and social validation. (I have a hunch that you agree with this, at least in principle.)</soapbox>

In short: I agree with your points in general, and I agree that (in the general case) marriage definitely helps bring about this change in attitude, but I am skeptical of the incidence of "successful relationships" (in our context) being higher in married than in non-married couples.