Slashdot Mirror
Why Engineers Must Consider the Ethical Implications of Their Work
An anonymous reader writes "An article by Abbas El-Zein at The Guardian explores the ethical responsibilities for engineers who create and maintain 'technologies of violence.' He says, 'Engineers who see themselves as builders of the shelter and infrastructure for human needs also use their expertise in order to destroy and kill more efficiently. When doctors or nurses use their knowledge of anatomy in order to torture or conduct medical experiments on helpless subjects, we are rightly outraged. Why doesn't society seem to apply the same standards to engineers? There is more than one answer to the question of course, but two points are especially pertinent: the common good we engineers see ourselves serving and our relationship to authority. ... Our ethics have become mostly technical: how to design properly, how to not cut corners, how to serve our clients well. We work hard to prevent failure of the systems we build, but only in relation to what these systems are meant to do, rather than the way they might actually be utilised, or whether they should have been built at all. We are not amoral, far from it; it's just that we have steered ourselves into a place where our morality has a smaller scope.'"
The existence of nuclear bombs have saved millions of lives over the last 60 years. Sounds pretty ethical to me.
Every single person needs to do this. If you work in the weapons industry and don't feel bad about it, you are a psychopath. Simple.
So your view is that good guys produce no weapons, and bad guys produce lots of weapons...and it's that simple? What happens when the bad guys decide to be bad with their weapons by turning them on the unarmed, defenseless good guys?
Or, is it that some people should work in the weapons industry, but feel really really bad about it. And of course, those of us who have happy jobs are the better people, since we took the "high road" by forcing someone else to be bad. Perhaps we could have a lottery (Shirley Jackson's version), to decide who among us has to be bad so that our good lives can continue safely. Then we can all sit back and bask in the shiny, sunny warmth of just how good we all are, unlike those bad, bad people who make weapons that we can defend ourselves with...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
I've worked on military systems before that were designed to enable killing.
Mine were more accurate than any predecessors, used better sensors than any predecessors, and had better controls than any predecessors. Sure, it's possible to send it off to kill civilians, but if you're aiming for the bad guy, it will kill only the bad guy, and not the schoolchildren next door.
To me, that's ethical. It'd be great if we could stop killing each other, but until that happens I'm going to do my best to keep everybody outside the conflict safe.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I work in "the weapons industry". I sleep well knowing that my projects are being used so that my baby girls can sleep well at night. But then, I've seen first hand what motivated, evil people do when nobody stops them. But then, I've been to some nasty parts of Africa. At the risk of Godwining the thread, I strongly encourage you to go tour one of the concentration camps in Germany. Those people exist, and to paraphrase, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."-Orwell,
I'm not sure he saw it that way:
In fact, he was later very much opposed to its use:
Oppenheimer was always a very conflicted individual.
Remember that he wasn't an elected politician or military commander, he was a civilian scientist who was tasked to develop the atomic bomb. It was never his job to decide if the bombs should be used and he knew that. In fact, he was very much motivated to both develop these weapons during WWII when he was terrified of the Nazi's developing a nuclear capability and using it on the Allies.
It's unfortunate that he felt bad about it later on. But guess what? A lot of people felt bad about many of their war actions later on. However, it was war. People tend to make different decisions when they are under an extreme amount of stress from a looming predator as compared to when they are relaxing in their vacation house.
Try to envision the time period. The Nazis had annihilated most of Europe and were gassing civilian Jews to death because they didn't think they were the perfect race. They were making lightshades out of Jewish skin for fun. The Japanese were waging a particularly vicious war on the Pacific. The US was stuck between these two insanities and tried to stay out of things for as long as possible. 12 MILLION people died in WWII. After the Nazis surrendered, the US had to start shipping war weary troops to the other side of the world for more fighting.
Was dropping two atomic bombs on Japan a nice thing to do? No. But I think the US was prepared to keep making nukes and dropping them on Japan until Japan surrendered rather than lose more US troops invading Japan.
Some of us choose not to design weapons. It isn't theoretical.
Actually it is in a way. This strategy only works because you are protected by other engineers who design the weapons that protect you, whether you approve of those weapons or not.
There is nothing wrong with your moral choice but lets face facts. Pacifists can only exits in absolute isolation or where they are protected by friendly non-pacifists. In the real world there will be unfriendly non-pacifists who will subjugate, enslave or kill you. Regrettably this is the way some humans are wired.
In the book "Guns, germs, and steel" a warlike group of pacific islanders are mentioned. A subgroup colonizes a new island, loses contact with the original group and in isolation becomes pacifist. When contact is reestablished the subgroup is enslaved. This was done to blood relatives separated by only a small amount of time (in generational terms) with a common culture, language and religion.
I think George Orwell summed it up thusly: People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. In other words don't sit around in a nice 1st world country and pretend it got that way by accident.
So a physician or nurse should just go ahead and help the CIA torture some poor goat herder in Gitmo, because they're not 'uniquely clever' and someone else could do it? Sorry, doesn't fly.
If I don't feel something is ethical I won't do it. I don't care if the guy at the next desk over can do it or not, that has no bearing on my decision at all. **I** won't do it because I feel it's wrong.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
There are also a lot of areas where there isn't a clear ethical line.
You work in petrochem. Are you killing the planet or providing necessary energy?
You are an interior ballistics expert working for a swedish arms manufacturer (Hi Oerjan). The weapons can be used to stomp ruthless murderers and terrorists or it can be shot into crowded buses. Do you own all of that?
You build dams. They provide power but they flood habitat. Are you doing something ethically good or bad?
You develop car engines. Cars get people around. Your engine might save on greenhouse gases. But it furthers the automotive culture. Ehtical or not?
I have written software for: Large HR system, massive multi-user gaming platform, 3G/4G network policy enforcement, massive online gaming platform where many of the games were slots, poker, etc, major federal police force dispatch and mobile computing software, point of sale systems, network management systems, RCAF Tactical Navigation Trainer, etc.
I'd say at least half of the projects had some dodgy aspect somewhere in them (the online gambling one was the most distasteful but it was legal and thus within general public acceptance although I felt a bit slimy as did many developers). You can pick ethical issues out in most projects both in terms of the final product, the marketing, or the underlying model of operations that the invention supports.
Do engineers own all of that? That's a lot to expect. If none of us worked on projects in any way dodgy ethically or morally, society would not have most of what it has today. I'd image a good 70% of technology would not exist.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."