• @ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    894 months ago

    My opinion is threefold:

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    • Primarily0617
      link
      fedilink
      15
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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

    • @greencactus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      74 months ago

      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 :)

  • @infinitevalence@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    444 months ago

    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.

      • @Syd@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        10
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

    • @rainynight65@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      44 months ago

      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.

    • @kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      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

  • @Atin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    304 months ago

    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.

  • @sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    244 months ago

    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.

    • @wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      15
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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?

      • @lurch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        94 months ago

        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.

        • @wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          10
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

          • @sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            64 months ago

            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?

            • @wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              84 months ago

              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?

                • Hjalmar
                  link
                  fedilink
                  44 months ago

                  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.

                • @wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  3
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  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.

        • @wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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?

          • @JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            34 months ago

            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.

            • @wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              24 months ago

              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.

    • @AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      134 months ago

      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.

      • @sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        94 months ago

        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.

  • @TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    224 months ago

    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.

  • AFK BRB Chocolate
    link
    fedilink
    English
    214 months ago

    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.

  • @WormFood@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    204 months ago

    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

  • @vampire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    144 months ago

    I don’t really think you need to worry about inanimate objects seeing as they haven’t been made for good or evil specifically. On the other hand, if you write software that decides who lives or dies, you have a gigantic responsibility and the blood of any accident is on your hands

  • @GrymEdm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    13
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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.

    • originalucifer
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      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’

      • @GrymEdm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

  • originalucifer
    link
    fedilink
    124 months ago

    nope, not if you care about human beings. the united states especially is under no threat requiring a near trillion dollar a year ‘defense’

    the military-industrial complex is a jobs-welfare program, but none of them will admit they are welfare recipients.

    many people can overlook their particular part as ‘well, my role isnt making a bullet that will go through a human, so what i do for this company is ok’

    im not that delusional.

    • @deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      64 months ago

      many people can overlook their particular part

      People are amazingly good at this.

      “I just make the munitions, I don’t use them”.

      “I just load the munitions, I don’t actually fire the weapon”.

      “I just fire the weapon, I didn’t put my target into the warzone”.

      “If I wasn’t, someone else would anyway”.