Here is an ethical question about the use of our computer technology. Every day, I see it being used to destroy lives in wars. The highest level of technology always seems to serve to kill the most possible people at a time. Do we have some responsibility in the way we create and distribute our computer products to others? Sales is an issue, but what about innocent lives getting trashed at the blink of an eye because some companies developped computer tools to develop the most advanced killing machine? Should the computer industry be more responsible as to how its technology get used?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Rhinorhino on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Should computer technology be used to kill people? 15
- Thread starter arlems
- Start date
I see what you mean and I didn't want to go too far astray.
But I didn't. The responsibility only gets specific, if you start developing for military use. Besides that, we share the responsibility of any creative mind.
We cannot hinder others in using new technologies for weapons - but we can assume a attitude towards it. Although we are not responsible for that (ab)use anymore, we should feel especially compelled to make clear - to ourselves and to others - how we think about the use.
As long, as we do not actively develop weapons' technology, our ethical responsibility is that of every human being - not to remian silent!
But I didn't. The responsibility only gets specific, if you start developing for military use. Besides that, we share the responsibility of any creative mind.
We cannot hinder others in using new technologies for weapons - but we can assume a attitude towards it. Although we are not responsible for that (ab)use anymore, we should feel especially compelled to make clear - to ourselves and to others - how we think about the use.
As long, as we do not actively develop weapons' technology, our ethical responsibility is that of every human being - not to remian silent!
My personal view:
Should technology be used to kill people? - Yes.
Do we, as IT and Computer Scientists, have any ethical responsibility with respect to how our technology is used to enhance weapons systems. - No.
As as been mentioned above technology only allows us to be more efficient and precise in our methods. Regarding responsibility, do Power Plant ethicly bear some resposibilty for the manner in which their electricity is used; no. I see no real distiction between the two.
Then again I suppose it can depend on the technology.
Should technology be used to kill people? - Yes.
Do we, as IT and Computer Scientists, have any ethical responsibility with respect to how our technology is used to enhance weapons systems. - No.
As as been mentioned above technology only allows us to be more efficient and precise in our methods. Regarding responsibility, do Power Plant ethicly bear some resposibilty for the manner in which their electricity is used; no. I see no real distiction between the two.
Then again I suppose it can depend on the technology.
hi Grenage,
I believe your making it a bit too easy for yourself. Throw a grenade? Yes. - Take the blame if it explodes? No!
Power Plant does not bear responsibility for the manner in which we use the electricity, that's correct. But they do bear for the way in which they produce it! And that means: including the radioactive waste.
That's what I meant with actively/passively participating in weapon's technology.
Of course you cannot blame a programmer who invented a sorting algorithm for someone else using it to sort out friends/foes!
But I believe you can very well put some (not too much) blame on the person who programs the guiding mechanism for a hellfire or a sidewinder, don't you think?
I believe your making it a bit too easy for yourself. Throw a grenade? Yes. - Take the blame if it explodes? No!
Power Plant does not bear responsibility for the manner in which we use the electricity, that's correct. But they do bear for the way in which they produce it! And that means: including the radioactive waste.
That's what I meant with actively/passively participating in weapon's technology.
Of course you cannot blame a programmer who invented a sorting algorithm for someone else using it to sort out friends/foes!
But I believe you can very well put some (not too much) blame on the person who programs the guiding mechanism for a hellfire or a sidewinder, don't you think?
CajunCenturion
Programmer
To reiterate my position, No, you can't put any blame on the person who programs the guidance system for a sidewinder so that it strikes an enemy fighter. But can you put the blame on the sidewinder weapons system designer who fails to properly program the guidance system so that it strikes a commerical jetliner by accident instead?
That's not the same question as someone who targets the jetliner, either by mistake or on purpose, both of which have happened.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
That's not the same question as someone who targets the jetliner, either by mistake or on purpose, both of which have happened.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Throw a grenade? - perhaps, but to make the grenade - No.
I see no ethical dilema with a programmer designing a weapons system, he's doing the job and has no say in whether or not it is used, or how it is used.
In my opinion the ethical responsibilty lies pretty squarely on the politicians shoulders who decide if the technology is put to use.
I see no ethical dilema with a programmer designing a weapons system, he's doing the job and has no say in whether or not it is used, or how it is used.
In my opinion the ethical responsibilty lies pretty squarely on the politicians shoulders who decide if the technology is put to use.
Again, I think the main goal is to convince the other guy not to fight. That's why weapons should be made to have maximum effectiveness. Where we must speak up is if the weapons are used in an unjust conflict. Weapons used in self defense, for example, are being justly used.
And how will you do this?
[cynism]Ask your boss: "Will these bombs only be used for self-defense? Else I'm on strike..."[/cynism]
Guess you've already discovered, that I am some sort of extremist in this respect myself. Who decides which weaponry use is just and which isn't?
If I post some code for encoding arabic or chinese text in this forum, I cannot help it, if the recipient uses it to distribute translated "how to build an atom bomb".
But if I have an idea of how to make bombs more effective, more precise and more easy-to-use, so that any parkinson-handicapped old f!rt could launch 'em, I'd keep that idea to myself. I wouldn't want to be an active part in any way of killing people. Today's problem is that we're not aware of the gruesome effects of weapons anymore.
[red]I don't care if I get killed by a precise or by a lumpy bomb - gone is gone! I don't want anyone to decide whether I shall live and have a future or not.[/red]
I have already read that horrible word "collateral damage" here.
When it comes to people affected by it: it's no damage, it's injury or even death.
And no good intention will ever bring that person back to life again.
And then it doesn't matter if I build the bomb myself or just tell someone how to do it.
The moment I actively and knowingly improve any weapon I become involved and thus become partly responsible for whatever is done with that thing.
...
Sorry, guys, I guess I was just starting to get a bit too excited over this discussion. I apologize if any of you feel offended by what I just wrote - but it had to get out, and I think this was a good place to do so.
![[afro]](/data/assets/smilies/afro.gif "[afro] [afro]")
Makey
[cynism]Ask your boss: "Will these bombs only be used for self-defense? Else I'm on strike..."[/cynism]
Guess you've already discovered, that I am some sort of extremist in this respect myself. Who decides which weaponry use is just and which isn't?
If I post some code for encoding arabic or chinese text in this forum, I cannot help it, if the recipient uses it to distribute translated "how to build an atom bomb".
But if I have an idea of how to make bombs more effective, more precise and more easy-to-use, so that any parkinson-handicapped old f!rt could launch 'em, I'd keep that idea to myself. I wouldn't want to be an active part in any way of killing people. Today's problem is that we're not aware of the gruesome effects of weapons anymore.
[red]I don't care if I get killed by a precise or by a lumpy bomb - gone is gone! I don't want anyone to decide whether I shall live and have a future or not.[/red]
I have already read that horrible word "collateral damage" here.
When it comes to people affected by it: it's no damage, it's injury or even death.
And no good intention will ever bring that person back to life again.
And then it doesn't matter if I build the bomb myself or just tell someone how to do it.
The moment I actively and knowingly improve any weapon I become involved and thus become partly responsible for whatever is done with that thing.
...
Sorry, guys, I guess I was just starting to get a bit too excited over this discussion. I apologize if any of you feel offended by what I just wrote - but it had to get out, and I think this was a good place to do so.
Makey
bluedragon2
IS-IT--Management
Another issue is that other things have benefited from the technology.
Or, another question:
Would you not work on a device that would make it possible for a blind person to navigate because it will also be used to guide a missle?
It is human nature to strive to learn...on a sad note, it is also human nature to have conflict.
Blue![[dragon]](/data/assets/smilies/dragon.gif "[dragon] [dragon]")
If I wasn't Blue, I would just be a Dragon...
Or, another question:
Would you not work on a device that would make it possible for a blind person to navigate because it will also be used to guide a missle?
It is human nature to strive to learn...on a sad note, it is also human nature to have conflict.
Blue
If I wasn't Blue, I would just be a Dragon...
I think the discussion brought up in the last few posts is going to depend on your bosses.
In response Cajun said No, you can't put any blame on the person who programs the guidance system for a sidewinder so that it strikes an enemy fighter....
I disagree. Make it personal... if I'm taking a job to design the guidance system for a missle, am I responsible for how it's used? To me the answer is, as much as can reasonably be anticipated. If I'm working for a company which sells the guidance system to the highest bidder, I'm guessing I have some problems, if I'm working for the US government and agree with their politics, my mind is much more at ease, if I'm working for the US government and I disagree with their politics, I definitely have some problems.
Make a grenade, don't make a grenade... small potatoes make the question as ambigous as we've answered... work on Nuclear Weapons during WWII, and yes, you can reasonably ascertain that your government wants to drop these on enemy targets... think about it... but no, I don't believe Openheimer and such (who did express issue with their own work) was reasonably able to ascertain the fact that the US government was going to drop them on civilian targets.
So I think I may have gotten long-winded (can never tell with this little entry box), but my point is... you need to be intellectually honest with yourself about what you're working on, and who you're working for. Then you need to mix that with your personal beliefs and politics, project both things out into the foreseable future and decide if it's something you want to persue or not.
-Rob
In response Cajun said No, you can't put any blame on the person who programs the guidance system for a sidewinder so that it strikes an enemy fighter....
I disagree. Make it personal... if I'm taking a job to design the guidance system for a missle, am I responsible for how it's used? To me the answer is, as much as can reasonably be anticipated. If I'm working for a company which sells the guidance system to the highest bidder, I'm guessing I have some problems, if I'm working for the US government and agree with their politics, my mind is much more at ease, if I'm working for the US government and I disagree with their politics, I definitely have some problems.
Make a grenade, don't make a grenade... small potatoes make the question as ambigous as we've answered... work on Nuclear Weapons during WWII, and yes, you can reasonably ascertain that your government wants to drop these on enemy targets... think about it... but no, I don't believe Openheimer and such (who did express issue with their own work) was reasonably able to ascertain the fact that the US government was going to drop them on civilian targets.
So I think I may have gotten long-winded (can never tell with this little entry box), but my point is... you need to be intellectually honest with yourself about what you're working on, and who you're working for. Then you need to mix that with your personal beliefs and politics, project both things out into the foreseable future and decide if it's something you want to persue or not.
-Rob
CajunCenturion
Programmer
"... sells the guidance system to the highest bidder, I'm guessing I have some problems, if I'm working for the US government and agree with their politics, my mind is much more at ease, if I'm working for the US government and I disagree with their politics, I definitely have some problems."
So skiflyer, are we to assume that your personal ethics are based on whether or not you agree with the politics of the whatever administration is in control at the time?
What happens to your personal ethics when the system that you worked on 4 years ago, without any problem because you agreed with that administration, is now being used by a different administration in whom you not in concert with?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
So skiflyer, are we to assume that your personal ethics are based on whether or not you agree with the politics of the whatever administration is in control at the time?
What happens to your personal ethics when the system that you worked on 4 years ago, without any problem because you agreed with that administration, is now being used by a different administration in whom you not in concert with?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
- Thread starter
- #52
I guess there are may levels of Reponsibility, and this is where we see the value of men. Responsiblity could be as low as "I am not responsible for anything even for my own actions", to "I am fully responsible for all my actions directly or indirectly, including those of others.
That one decided to build a atomic bomb, and saying that he is NOT responsible for anything that occurs with his bomb once he has built it, seems odd to me. If I had built a bomb that killed many, I would have to say that I did it, no matter who used MY invention. The guy who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima did it, but the inventor of that bomb did it too, otherwise the pilot wouldn't have had anything to drop.
When you create a song that is good and makes people happy. Or if you make a good cake that people rave about it. Do you take responsibility for it. Do you say, yes I did it and that is why you guys are now happy. What about a good movie that moves people. Do you say, "I did it?". If think you would.
It is hard to think of be responsible only for good things, but when it is matter of life and death, nobody is responsible anymore.
What do you think?
That one decided to build a atomic bomb, and saying that he is NOT responsible for anything that occurs with his bomb once he has built it, seems odd to me. If I had built a bomb that killed many, I would have to say that I did it, no matter who used MY invention. The guy who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima did it, but the inventor of that bomb did it too, otherwise the pilot wouldn't have had anything to drop.
When you create a song that is good and makes people happy. Or if you make a good cake that people rave about it. Do you take responsibility for it. Do you say, yes I did it and that is why you guys are now happy. What about a good movie that moves people. Do you say, "I did it?". If think you would.
It is hard to think of be responsible only for good things, but when it is matter of life and death, nobody is responsible anymore.
What do you think?
Cajun
No of course my ethics wouldn't be so fickle... hence the reason I made statements regarding the current climate, as well as why I said project both things out into the foreseable future and decide if it's something you want to persue or not.
I would not consider myself responsible if I believed I was in a nation/administration/just general framework that coincided with what I believed and thought that for what I viewed as a reasonable lifespan for that technology and that framework was overthrown the very next day. This simply addresses my concept of "intellectual honesty"... I can't do work for Evil Corporation A because they have a good CEO, and he's doing good things right now, knowing full well that the board or the majority shareholders want him out.
The real world examples are of course much crazier, I'm basically saying, you need to be honest about your intentions, your employers intentions to the best of your ability to understand them, and move from there. I think it's irresponsible to say I'll build that and hey, someone else is going to pull the trigger so I'm a-ok when you know full well that they will pull the trigger in a situation that you are not ethically comfortable with.
Please notice, I keep my language heavily loaded with terms like "know full well", that is intentional, and I am aware that in real life things are rarely so simple... but as with many ethical discussions, I find it useful to define the extreme situation on both sides, figure out how far apart they are, and figure out which comprimises need to be made as your come towards the middle.
-Rob
No of course my ethics wouldn't be so fickle... hence the reason I made statements regarding the current climate, as well as why I said project both things out into the foreseable future and decide if it's something you want to persue or not.
I would not consider myself responsible if I believed I was in a nation/administration/just general framework that coincided with what I believed and thought that for what I viewed as a reasonable lifespan for that technology and that framework was overthrown the very next day. This simply addresses my concept of "intellectual honesty"... I can't do work for Evil Corporation A because they have a good CEO, and he's doing good things right now, knowing full well that the board or the majority shareholders want him out.
The real world examples are of course much crazier, I'm basically saying, you need to be honest about your intentions, your employers intentions to the best of your ability to understand them, and move from there. I think it's irresponsible to say I'll build that and hey, someone else is going to pull the trigger so I'm a-ok when you know full well that they will pull the trigger in a situation that you are not ethically comfortable with.
Please notice, I keep my language heavily loaded with terms like "know full well", that is intentional, and I am aware that in real life things are rarely so simple... but as with many ethical discussions, I find it useful to define the extreme situation on both sides, figure out how far apart they are, and figure out which comprimises need to be made as your come towards the middle.
-Rob
'And how will you do this?
[cynism]Ask your boss: "Will these bombs only be used for self-defense? Else I'm on strike..."[/cynism]'
Don't be silly! You don't do this on the job; you do it through the normal political process.
Pardon me, but it looks like a lot of you guys are agonizing about the possibility that your work will be used in weapons. What if you refuse to work on a weapon, and that refusal causes a defeat for your 'side' in a conflict? Now you are responsible for BOTH military and civilian casualties in your own neighborhood. Perhaps your own family. Will you feel virtuous then?
It looks like you want to hide behind those who are paying the price for your freedom, while debating whether or not to help them. What is virtuous about that?
[cynism]Ask your boss: "Will these bombs only be used for self-defense? Else I'm on strike..."[/cynism]'
Don't be silly! You don't do this on the job; you do it through the normal political process.
Pardon me, but it looks like a lot of you guys are agonizing about the possibility that your work will be used in weapons. What if you refuse to work on a weapon, and that refusal causes a defeat for your 'side' in a conflict? Now you are responsible for BOTH military and civilian casualties in your own neighborhood. Perhaps your own family. Will you feel virtuous then?
It looks like you want to hide behind those who are paying the price for your freedom, while debating whether or not to help them. What is virtuous about that?
kiddpete
Because I live in any given country does make me feel more virtuous about protecting the lives in my own neighborhood any more than protecting the lives of the potential victims of my country's aggression.
Do I ask my boss that, no. Do I take a job, where I may be asked to develop weapons for a boss who's political idealogy I don't agree with... tough question, currently I'm single and only have to feed myself, so likely no... do I take a job to develop weapons for a boss who's political idealogy I'm staunchly opposed to... no.
You can call it hiding behind those who are paying the price for my freedom, I can refer to wanting/not wanting to help aggression. In this case it's a moot point since we're talking about any specific government... but your argument is also blind to the bigger picture, what if my boss if a foreign contractor, then is just as easy for you to say no? Are you political views so skewed to "on your block" that morals be damned?
-Rob
Because I live in any given country does make me feel more virtuous about protecting the lives in my own neighborhood any more than protecting the lives of the potential victims of my country's aggression.
Do I ask my boss that, no. Do I take a job, where I may be asked to develop weapons for a boss who's political idealogy I don't agree with... tough question, currently I'm single and only have to feed myself, so likely no... do I take a job to develop weapons for a boss who's political idealogy I'm staunchly opposed to... no.
You can call it hiding behind those who are paying the price for my freedom, I can refer to wanting/not wanting to help aggression. In this case it's a moot point since we're talking about any specific government... but your argument is also blind to the bigger picture, what if my boss if a foreign contractor, then is just as easy for you to say no? Are you political views so skewed to "on your block" that morals be damned?
-Rob
What if you refuse to work on a weapon, and that refusal causes a defeat for your 'side' in a conflict?
Oh well, and what if my work on a weapon causes the victory of "my" side and the death of a million on the other - like fat man/little boy?
That's exactly the point. If I take responsibility, I must take it for my actions as well as for my non-actions. If my non-action turns out to be the worse side - then I was wrong! But you never know beforehand! Here's where this thread crosses with Cajun's thread about admitting mistakes...(thread717-693459) ;-)
Shall I say: "What if you refuse to work on a weapon, and that refusal causes a defeat for your 'side' in a conflict?" and use it as an excuse every time I work on a weapon?
Taking responsibility or not is a question that must not be asked once, but every day!
SOunds straining - but who said, life was simple?
Oh well, and what if my work on a weapon causes the victory of "my" side and the death of a million on the other - like fat man/little boy?
That's exactly the point. If I take responsibility, I must take it for my actions as well as for my non-actions. If my non-action turns out to be the worse side - then I was wrong! But you never know beforehand! Here's where this thread crosses with Cajun's thread about admitting mistakes...(thread717-693459) ;-)
Shall I say: "What if you refuse to work on a weapon, and that refusal causes a defeat for your 'side' in a conflict?" and use it as an excuse every time I work on a weapon?
Taking responsibility or not is a question that must not be asked once, but every day!
SOunds straining - but who said, life was simple?
...yeah, but this all sounds like "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".
What does it matter if you 'know' or 'think' your work 'might' or 'will' be used to kill someone? That's like saying that the ore miner should bear responsibility because the ore he mines makes steel that might (and certainly much of it is) be turned into weapons--guns, bomb casings, fighter planes, etc. Should all the miners who have 'ethics' then go on strike or quit, or else they be branded as uncaring murderes?
Taking it further, why not sabotage the mine? This is what greenpeace and the other environmental extremists do to companies they feel are harming the enviroment in some way.
Taking it even further, it could be argued (albiet only by the truly insane) that anyone who is not actively helping their (ie greenpeace, et. al.) cause is by association (or lack of association) part of the problem, so why not 'neutralize' them--they're not helping so they're part of the problem.
See how ridiculous it can get?
--jsteph
What does it matter if you 'know' or 'think' your work 'might' or 'will' be used to kill someone? That's like saying that the ore miner should bear responsibility because the ore he mines makes steel that might (and certainly much of it is) be turned into weapons--guns, bomb casings, fighter planes, etc. Should all the miners who have 'ethics' then go on strike or quit, or else they be branded as uncaring murderes?
Taking it further, why not sabotage the mine? This is what greenpeace and the other environmental extremists do to companies they feel are harming the enviroment in some way.
Taking it even further, it could be argued (albiet only by the truly insane) that anyone who is not actively helping their (ie greenpeace, et. al.) cause is by association (or lack of association) part of the problem, so why not 'neutralize' them--they're not helping so they're part of the problem.
See how ridiculous it can get?
--jsteph
You got me completely wrong jsteph.
Although you are absolutely right in some points: ;-)
miners going on strike because of what is going to be done with their ore is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as some actions by greenpeace or robin wood or...
But that was not my point. As I mentioned above:
If I post some code for encoding arabic or chinese text in this forum, I cannot help it, if the recipient uses it to distribute translated "how to build an atom bomb".
Even it sounded differently above: I do understand and tolerate the more active/offensive/pro-weapon-use view of most participants here. I do not share it and the best way surely lies somewhere in the middle.
But the best position for a good discussion is a strong position. Else there is not enough confliict to produce good arguments. Right?![[bigcheeks]](/data/assets/smilies/bigcheeks.gif "[bigcheeks] [bigcheeks]")
And you just gave one - all those extremists that use good arguments as an excuse for sabotage or simply stupid "rescue" actions do it, because they don't think enough. They don't think of the consequences or just don't care about them.
And that is what taking responsibility means: being aware of the consequences. Nothing more but also nothing less.
And as a programmer you should always at least try to be aware of the consequences.
So as a programmer you always need to take responsibility - for everything you are doing.
Thanks for that fantastic forward pass, jsteph! ;-)
Makey
Although you are absolutely right in some points: ;-)
miners going on strike because of what is going to be done with their ore is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as some actions by greenpeace or robin wood or...
But that was not my point. As I mentioned above:
If I post some code for encoding arabic or chinese text in this forum, I cannot help it, if the recipient uses it to distribute translated "how to build an atom bomb".
Even it sounded differently above: I do understand and tolerate the more active/offensive/pro-weapon-use view of most participants here. I do not share it and the best way surely lies somewhere in the middle.
But the best position for a good discussion is a strong position. Else there is not enough confliict to produce good arguments. Right?
And you just gave one - all those extremists that use good arguments as an excuse for sabotage or simply stupid "rescue" actions do it, because they don't think enough. They don't think of the consequences or just don't care about them.
And that is what taking responsibility means: being aware of the consequences. Nothing more but also nothing less.
And as a programmer you should always at least try to be aware of the consequences.
So as a programmer you always need to take responsibility - for everything you are doing.
Thanks for that fantastic forward pass, jsteph! ;-)
Makey
![[wink]](/data/assets/smilies/wink.gif "[wink] [wink]")
)- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question