I feel more confident already!
I feel more confident already!
When a doctor tortures a patient there is a direct cause and effect from the doctor's actions to the pain and suffering of the victim.
When an engineer designs a weapon, he's not actually causing the pain and suffering. Once you get away from "complete responsibility", the rest is easy:
And if a doctor is asked to treat a tortured prisoner so that they may be healthy enough to be tortured more?
But DARPA pie-in-the-sky projects are but a drop in the bucket compared to the budgets and industries involved directly in "designing a missile system to kill lots of brown people on the other side of the world," including the number of engineers employed.
And you and your customers always agree who the "bad guy" is in all situations? Or do you try to avoid asking too many questions (and all mention of Wikileaks)?
And does your employer only sell weapons to customers you are morally comfortable with, or do those weapons end up being sold to just about anybody the government wants to placate at the moment?
Can you guarantee that the weapons you're designing are being deliberately used to threaten someone else's sleeping baby girls, if not your own outright?
And did those rough men design and build their own weapons?
Its not the scalpel or the gun that is the problem, it is the mind and the intentions behind the hand holding the scalpel or gun.
Medical companies refuse to export drugs to the United States that they know are used in executions. But nobody will stop selling arms to someone else unless and until international law gets involved, and sometimes not even then.
It seems pretty clear that those in the field of medicine have a higher moral standard.
"State electrician" isn't just a euphemism.
A medical doctor who participates in a state-sanctioned execution will still find himself in professional jeopardy at home and typically wouldn't be allowed to practice abroad. The same is not true of engineers involved in the design of devices used in state-sanctioned executions.
nearly one in four has self-censored for fear of government surveillance
That's not exactly what the report said, and I'm just skimming the thing here.
28% have curtailed or avoided social media activities, and another 12% have seriously considered
24% have deliberately avoided certain topics in phone or email conversations, and another 9% have seriously considered it;
16% have avoided writing or speaking about a particular topic, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
16% have refrained from conducting Internet searches or visiting websites on topics that may be considered controversial or suspicious, and another 12% have seriously considered it;
13% have taken extra steps to disguise or cover their digital footprints, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
3% have declined opportunities to meet (in person, or electronically) people who might be deemed security threats by the government, and another 4% have seriously considered it.
Boiled down: about one-third of the American press are chickens, about two-thirds are not.
DISCLAIMER: Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement of Western industrial civilization.