But that’s not how most janitorial contracts work. You work for a company and then are contracted to clean. You don’t have a say with who owns the building. For the most part anyways.
Ethics is our most pressing modern dilemma. What if the janitor and his two kids he raises alone are about to get kicked out of their flat unless he finds a new job, and he’s been looking for 4 months and it’s the only offer he got?
Or I’ll even take it a different direction. Say the janitor is single, lives a minimalistic lifestyle, and gives money to anti-war causes or politicians actively trying to regulate these weapons.
Can we quantify morality? Is there enough of an ethical net gain here to absolve them?
Probably fine if you are the janitor. If you are the engineer in charge of maximising “effectiveness” of weaponry well…
I’m going to disagree on that one. Anything to do that helps enabling it is morally wrong.
But that’s not how most janitorial contracts work. You work for a company and then are contracted to clean. You don’t have a say with who owns the building. For the most part anyways.
Ethics is our most pressing modern dilemma. What if the janitor and his two kids he raises alone are about to get kicked out of their flat unless he finds a new job, and he’s been looking for 4 months and it’s the only offer he got?
Or I’ll even take it a different direction. Say the janitor is single, lives a minimalistic lifestyle, and gives money to anti-war causes or politicians actively trying to regulate these weapons.
Can we quantify morality? Is there enough of an ethical net gain here to absolve them?
Paying taxes? Most of that goes to military spending in the US
That’s factually not true.
Yes that is “morally wrong” as well. The difference is that you don’t have a choice.
Moral wrongs become less wrong the less of a choice you have to make them.
Stealing is bad, but I have no problem with a starving person that steals.