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…
I don’t think it’s ethical. But if it’s take that job or lose my house? I’ll take the job until I can find something better.
Why shouldn’t you?
As a Buddhist no it’s absolutely not, as trading in weapons is specifically prohibited by the Right Livelihood part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Otherwise I see no problem.
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.
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.
Do you believe that a nation has no need for weapons?
Or rather is it immoral for a nation to keep and equip a defence force?
If you know that your nation is going to use the weapons for imperialism (as America Russia and China do) they in fact need less weapons.
What imperialism is America doing currently?
But besides that, even if your nation is doing imperialist things surely you would agree that maintaining an army to not get your country absolutely destroyed by any other country at any time is valid
The biggest new one right now is Pakistan but all the old ones such as DRC too of course
And you know… Israel…
In what world are those imperialist projects? Can you qualify that in some way? Let’s go with 1, say Pakistan
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
If it’s a choice then no I don’t think it’s ethical. If it’s the only job you can get and you absolutely need it to survive or you’re facing threat of war from another country that’s a harder issue.
But assuming you aren’t forced to do it and it’s entirely your choice in time of peace: choosing to make weapons of war isn’t very ethical IMO.
Depends on the country.
No. But people have different ideas of what’s ethical and what’s not.
If you ask in a pro military or Conservative space you’ll probably be told “yes”.
You’ll have to decide for yourself whether you could live with working for such a company. Everyone needs to eat and if that’s your best choice for work then it may not be such an easy choice.
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.
Of course not
Do you live in the united states or any of its allies? If yes, then no, it is not ethical.
So if you’re Russian, sure, go for it!
What a very intelligent take.
Or Chinese, yes lol
No. Absolutely not. This is how their tools put them above you in power. You get to use their tools, but only to increase their power over you.
No.
I think this question boils down to this: Do your actions have a net positive or a net negative affect on the world? Does working at this company in some way offset the harm that the company is doing downstream? In this case I have a hard time coming up with a reasonable way in which this might be the case. Paying you and your family to have stuff doesn’t offset causing actual death and physical harm.
I mean … not saying I necessarily agree, but isn’t the logical counter argument being defense and deterrence?
I use to be much much more ideologically against arms production, but honestly, seeing what’s happening in Ukraine has given me some pause and caused me to reflect a lot. When a tyrant like Putin can amass a huge amount of weaponry and just decide to invade and impose a totalitarian dictatorship on a neighbouring country, and the only thing that has stopped him is a mass amount of better weaponry, it muddies the moral waters a bit.
This is true, but on a personal level I have no idea how to do the calculus for, “My work is killing people, but it would have been worse if it hadn’t.” I think the show “The Good Place” got it right and it is just too interconnected and complicated to actually derive an answer as to whether an action is net negative or positive. That said, if I had to place money on a given action being negative, working for an arms manufacturer would be one I’d be fairly comfortable betting on.
No. I left the military because I couldn’t morally justify staying in.
