My opinion is threefold:
-
It is always ethical to not starve to death. (Caveat: assuming you are not directly harming someone else) If the only job available to you is making supplies for the military, don’t beat yourself up. We live in a capitalist hellscape, you need to pay rent, you need to buy food, you need health insurance, you need to be able to have vacations and save for retirement and do fun things from time to time. If you can do anything to mitigate that harm–participate in demonstrations, donate to aid organizations, etc–do that; but if you’re not in a situation to be able to do those things, you’re not being unethical. You’re just doing what you can.
-
It is always ethical to do less harm. If your company makes support equipment for military applications–desk chairs, for example, or toilet paper–your job is more ethical than the job making, you know, bombs or bullets or napalm or whatever. A job making things that are not inherently harmful but can be used in the course of causing harm– well, let’s be honest, that’s every job.
-
A job in military supply is as ethical as the company you work for and the military they sell to. If your company is selling smart bombs to Russia’s military, try to get out. But if your company is selling to a military that uses the products of your labor to mount a defense against an invading force, what you’re doing might even be helping to reduce death.
But overall, “ethicalness” is not a binary, and it’s not the same in every situation.
you need to be able to have vacations and save for retirement and do fun things from time to time
ahem actually people only need to exist and survive until they work themselves to death getting tangled in the gears of my spinning jennys
Very good criterias! I think OP posted a great question, and your philosophy seems to be a very interesting merge of a virtue-based approach (that A/B is always good/bad) and an utilitarian one. I like it at a lot :)
Pretty sure its just moral relativism.
-
If the choice is starve or work for this company, then yes its ethical.
If your skills and experience can transfer to other companies and jobs, then no its not ethical IMO.
If the choice is to starve or work for this company, then it’s pragmatic to work there. No, it’s not ethical. That being said, not everyone is in the fortunate position where they can let their ethics decide where they work, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Yeah most engineers in defense work aren’t starved for jobs, but in fact are paid the most by military contractors. It’s like Snowden working for Booz Allen Hamilton, government contractors pay talented people a ton to advance their goals and keep their mouth shut. But they could make less working somewhere else
How far do you take it?
Work in food supply that feeds the people who make end weapons?
Working in that industry you’re creating food. It’s purpose is to nourish people. Working in an industry that makes weapons to harm, and kill is intrinsically different.
As soon as you are asking this seriously, the answer for you personally is: better don’t.
You don’t know the future, you can never know what will be done with the things you have built and who will be doing it.
If you are a young person, you are simply looking to make money (and maybe don’t do much harm at the same time, but that’s second priority), and I think that’s quite OK for a while.
The older you get, the more weight you put on the question: what are you really doing there every day and for whose benefit?
Counterpoint: what about all the weapons used by Ukraine to defend itself and western democracy against Russian aggression and imperialism? Should those not have been made?
Edit: Editing my most top level comment to point out possible subsequent vote brigading. When this post was only half a day old I received way more upvotes than the people I debated. Now that this post has gotten older the ratio is closer to neutral without any new comments pointing to any flaws in my argument. Hence, I think my debate partners felt the need to involve their equally misled friends to downvote my arguments and upvote their previously negatively voted comments back into the positives. Seems very inorganic to me.
Edit 2: The above edit is mostly meant for my discussion thread with NeoNachtwaechter.
I wish I had a thorough answer for you, but I’m afraid it would be very, very complicated. This war came out of a complex situation and we (westerners) can understand only a fraction of it all.
But I give you just a simple idea to think about:
Imagine all these weapons would not have existed, on both sides, then maybe there would have been a war anyway, but probably much less killing and suffering.
I agree with you in theory, but the current reality just does not give a fuck about wishful thinking. As long as there are despots like Putin, Xi Jinping, et al., who see our democratic values as a threat to their own autocratic views we simply have to live with the fact that we have to build weapons to deter their imperialistic goals.
Now that is not only too simple thinking, but it is also not true. As far as your weapons are used there, it is for your own imperialistic goals.
So you prefer autocracies over democracies? Am I understanding you correctly?
Now you are mixing up things badly. The answer is No. You are not understanding.
I think I am understanding you very well. You say democratic imperialism is just as bad as autocratic imperialism, creating a false balance when you agree that autocracies are inherently worse for humanity than democracies. Furthermore, Ukraine was attacked by a far more capable force than their own. They, by the very definition of imperialism, cannot be imperialistic by simply fighting for its own survival against an autocratic and clearly imperialist Russia.
you make an interesting point and it reminds me of a counter point: that modern wars might have higher death tolls than historical wars, but modern wars - with modern weapons - end up costing less life overall compared to the populations of the time.
for tribal conflict of humans past, victory could mean wiping out the other tribe - 50% death toll or higher. as weapons advanced and more efficient and more destructive tactics emerged, wars can be more violent and more deadly but shorter and with fewer deaths compared to the overall population. wars became efficient.
all this is to say that if we didn’t have modern weapons there would be more killing - not less. “victory” would necessitate more deaths.
wars can be […] shorter
I’m not so sure about that - appears like a theoretical argument to me. Today’s real wars are going much too long to let this look plausible.
You’d have to read historical facts if you really want to compare wars. I would simply think about some people fighting with bare hands, and they get exhausted after only a few minutes (and may decide to make peace then), while some people fighting with guns can do that easily for years.
In peacetime, countries do not make as many weapons as they can. They make as many weapons as they think they need, based on how many weapons they think their rivals have. So when you make a weapon, you also make a lot of other countries make weapons. And this weapon buildup increases the risk of war.
In a perfectly peaceful world where autocracies can live side by side with democracies you may have a point. But autocratic Russia’s war of aggression on democratic Ukraine certainly paints a different picture to your wishful thinking. The lesson for democratic countries is therefore clear: If you don’t want to be invaded by uncooperative and irrational autocracies, you have to build up as much military capacity as your unpredictable systemic rivals. Remind me again, who had the military advantage by sheer numbers in the war on Ukraine?
Addendum: The entirety of the Cold War arms race without any major escalation between the US and the USSR is disproving your claim regarding increasing the risk of war btw.
If you don’t want to be invaded by uncooperative and irrational autocracies, you have to build up as much military capacity as your unpredictable systemic rivals.
Every resource spent on weapons is a resource not spent on infrastructure / education / what have you. Military expenditure is at best a necessary evil; a better option is to have just enough weapons to stop an enemy’s initial attack, and to invest the rest of your resources into building industrial capacity that can be used for military production if the need arises.
Remind me again, who had the military advantage by sheer numbers in the war on Ukraine?
Russia doesn’t calculate how many weapons it needs to produce depending on how many Ukraine has. It’s main threats are the other superpowers - the US and China. So of course in a conflict with Ukraine they will have a massive advantage.
Your first paragraph ist simply paraphrasing my entire comment, so you agree with me. Regarding your second paragraph: Then why did they attack and invade Ukraine, if it is neither a threat nor a rivaling power? Kind of looks like Ukraine having not enough arms to defend itself was one of the prime motives for Russia.
Right, I’m not saying countries should dismantle their armies, just that weapon manufacturing and stockpiling should be avoided as far as possible unless your country is under attack.
Ukraine was similarly lacking in arms from 1990 to 2014. Russia only felt the need to attack when it felt threatened that Ukraine might join NATO, because that could result in US troops on its doorstep.
Ah yea, Ukrainian does not want to follow orders for Russia or even considers joining NATO is for sure a very valid reason to attack, murder and rape Ukrainians! I totally forgot about this brilliant piece of Russian propaganda! But thanks for read from the Putin bible for us!!! I think the idea of all weapons are bad, is a idea born by people far far away from any dictators or aggressive neighbors etc. if you go to Ukraine, South Korea, Taiwan or Surinam, then you might realize this is a luxury stance. Not every redneck needs a AR, but there are people who only sink ships in the read sea, because fuck everyone else. I think working in defense is not bad, as long as you do not try to sell your tech to dictators or Mexican drug cartels. So it would be good if the company complies to certain values…
Sure. Every country has a right to defend itself. Most of the time it isn’t the tool that isn’t moral but how it is put to use.
Is it ethical to give tools to a country you don’t trust to use them responsibly?
Countries don’t exist. Only people.
I feel like this really depends on your options. Ethics are less crucial when your options are lesser as well.
If you’re choosing between equally paying jobs in military contracting vs saving lives? Pretty easy choice to me. If you’re choosing between doing manual labor for a military supplier vs your family being on the street? Also a pretty easy choice.
Ethics are less crucial when your options are lesser as well.
But that may be an illusion, and your conscience may tell you about it - later.
I work for an aerospace and defense contractor. The vast majority of my activities over the years has been for non-military space flight, but not all of it, I’ve also worked on torpedos, missile defense, and other military systems.
When I started working for the company, it was on the space shuttle project, so the military part didn’t even occur to me (though the shuttle did place some military payloads). When I was first asked to support the military side, I found myself doing some soul searching, and I decided the main question I had to ask myself was, “Should the United States have weapons or a military?” I pretty quickly decided the answer was yes.
Does that mean I agree with every military action the government has taken? No, far from it. But there have also been many I do agree with, and I for sure believe the country needs a strong military.
So yes, I believe it’s ethical.
No.
How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go for collateral ethical responsibility?
If you work on the power grid that has a weapons manufacturer are you responsible for every use of that weapon?
If you provide clean water, and workers of a weapons factory drink that water, are you now responsible for the weapons?
If you design a weapon safety system, to prevent misfires, are you not responsible for the other uses of the weapon?
If you make a composite steel alloy, and some of the purchasers of that alloy are weapons manufacturers etc etc etc
in my opinion this is very straightforward. the people working directly on power, water and materials don’t have any control over how those things are used and often don’t/can’t know what they’re being used for. however, at some point, a decision is made - for example, someone at the company that makes the steel alloy decides to sell it to raytheon - and so whoever made that decision is responsible.
and yes, if you work on a weapon safety system, you are working on an essential part of that weapon and so are responsible for its use
What if you work in HR at a major weapons manufacturer?
It’s not always straightforward. I work as a software developer at a company which creates scientific measurement instruments. These instruments are used to do research into new battery types, and make cement greener. But they are also used extensively by the fossil fuel industry. I do struggle with the ethics of this.
For now I’ve decided to keep doing the job and make good money. When we’ve figured some other shit out in our lives we’ll most likely move, and I’ll give it another shot to work a job which I feel better about.
Fuck no.
I don’t think it is inherently unethical to work for a defense supplier, but it obviously depends on the country it is supplying. We in the West certainly need a strong defense industry. China and Russia both have publicly declared their intention to conquer other countries. Just ask Ukraine or Taiwan. Or Europe. Europe can’t properly support Ukraine because its defense industry is so fragmented, politicized and atrophied.
We in the West certainly need a strong defense industry.
But our defense industry sells arms to more or less anyone willing to pay. Most types of arms have basically become commodities, and the net effect of anyone producing more is that arms become cheaper and more accessible worldwide.
I’m no expert on arms control, but I’m pretty sure the industry in the West can only sell to approved countries. But, yes, I take your point that there is always some form of arms race happening in the world and keeping the arms industry going means having to sell more arms, which will be used to kill people at some point. Unfortunately, we still need a defense industry.
Good point.
I’d think that the work these folks in Ukraine are doing would be an example of ethical (and, my God, it must be fulfilling) defense work.
We in the West certainly need a strong defense industry. China and Russia both have publicly declared their intention to conquer other countries. Just ask Ukraine or Taiwan.
But just don’t ask Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Lybia, Panama, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen… am I right?
Korea seems like a really bad example for you, since the South relies on the US to prevent invasion.
I wonder who was leading South Korea for like forty years after the war? There’s no way it would a fascist dictator was it? Yes, no peace treaty was ever signed. What is your point exactly? Why do you think the north has somehow less of a claim than a country that had to be propped up by the world’s biggest bully for decades?
Come on, more even the north admits they don’t want unification, just that South Korea is their number one enemy.
As for the dictator, yes the was bad and dark times. But nowadays SK definitely doesn’t want to get taken over by NK.
Yeah, since literally this year. Nearly sixty years on.
As for the dictator, yes the was bad and dark times.
The US didn’t seem to.see that as a problem.
No, do ask them. Go ahead. Some will try to outright murder you for unrelated reasons. Some do not regard the US as a threat any more and the rest will turn out to be goddam assholes you’d wish to be bombed again.
Ah yes, America killing literally tens of million: righteous! China killing literally no one, absolute scum of the earth!
Never takes much for the shoe to drop with you people.
Huh? China has been killing tons of people in their concentration camps.
When did America kill tens of millions? China certainly did kill tens of millions under Mao. Did you make a mistake and reverse the order?
You can’t possibly be serious. You’ve got to be a troll.
Vietnam: 3~4,000,000 (not account for the the devastatinf effects of agent orange) Cambodia: 500,000 (not counting US involvement in continuing Khmer Rouge’s massacres) Laos: 50,000 (not accounting for the still ongoing issue of unexploded ordinances) Korea: 2~4,000,000 Iraq desert storm: 1,000,000+ Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria: 400,00 direct violent deaths and 3~4,000,000 indirect deaths.
Shall I continue?
Not going to retract your comment about China then?
You’re conflating policy failures (for which he absolutely took responsibility) to wars of aggression. If you can’t see how these two aren’t the same you can’t be helped.
He has never claimed that China hasn’t murdered anyone? Neither has he opposed your claim that China killed millions (which they sure did).
It’s really sad to see this type of reactions when people try to say anything against the US. Questioning the US is not the same thing as supporting china, whatever US politicians want you to believe.
deleted by creator
i mean, i probably wouldn’t resent you for mopping the floors at BAE. but if you actually design or build the missiles, yes, that is unethical
a lot of people are using the example of ukraine to say ‘sometimes the missiles are for the greater good’, and while i would agree with that specific example, you don’t have control over where your missiles go. russian tank, yemeni refugee, etc
i also think saying ‘the parts will be made anyway’ is kind of a dodge, the question isn’t whether the parts will be made, it’s whether you will make them
As a rule of thumb… no.
No
No. I left the military because I couldn’t morally justify staying in.
It’s a complex question, but I think the short answer is it depends on if your country has safeguards in place to control where that manufactured equipment goes. A few months ago I watched a video interview of a US State Department official who publicly resigned because he felt those safeguards (specifically laws of war and laws of proportionality) had been bypassed during recent arms transfer to Israel. I could see someone quitting their military manufacturing or engineering jobs for the same reasons. Whether or not you agree with how your nation’s arms are being used is a matter of personal ethics and involves things like political accountability.
I know I want my country to have self-defense capabilities, and that means having a well-supplied military. Thus I support at least some arms manufacturing. I very much dislike the idea of it being entangled with major economic factors because I don’t want war to make economic sense - i.e. “drive the industry”. My guess is a lot of people worldwide would like to see less arms-for-profit trading because it makes military industrialists rich at the expense of weapons spreading around the world and often causing harm to innocent people.
do you feel what the united states spends on its military is proportionate to its direct defense requirement?
i think were up to 950b/year in ‘danger’
Honestly, I’m not wise/educated enough to give a certain answer. I sure feel like there’s a lot more spending being done than is probably required, and the DoD has failed multiple audits for 6 years now. So there’s cause for concern or at least accountability about where the US taxpayer’s money is ending up. The DoD budget could buy a lot of infrastructure, teachers, healthcare, debt relief, etc. so it’s not unreasonable for citizens to want to know what they’re gaining in exchange for giving those things up.
On the other hand, I live in Canada and the hard truth is we rely on the USA for a lot of our military needs. I know if Putin decides Ukraine isn’t enough and he starts eyeing Canadian land (say in the Arctic), then I’m going to want to know NATO can win. My final take is probably that US military spending could be moderated, but cuts should be made carefully with justification.
