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.
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.
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”.
How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go for collateral ethical responsibility?
If you work on the power grid that has a weapons manufacturer are you responsible for every use of that weapon?
If you provide clean water, and workers of a weapons factory drink that water, are you now responsible for the weapons?
If you design a weapon safety system, to prevent misfires, are you not responsible for the other uses of the weapon?
If you make a composite steel alloy, and some of the purchasers of that alloy are weapons manufacturers etc etc etc
in my opinion this is very straightforward. the people working directly on power, water and materials don’t have any control over how those things are used and often don’t/can’t know what they’re being used for. however, at some point, a decision is made - for example, someone at the company that makes the steel alloy decides to sell it to raytheon - and so whoever made that decision is responsible.
and yes, if you work on a weapon safety system, you are working on an essential part of that weapon and so are responsible for its use
What if you work in HR at a major weapons manufacturer?
Unethical².
It’s not always straightforward. I work as a software developer at a company which creates scientific measurement instruments. These instruments are used to do research into new battery types, and make cement greener. But they are also used extensively by the fossil fuel industry. I do struggle with the ethics of this.
For now I’ve decided to keep doing the job and make good money. When we’ve figured some other shit out in our lives we’ll most likely move, and I’ll give it another shot to work a job which I feel better about.
Yes it is. You are not the one ordering purchasing or using those.
You boycott by not buying Nestlé not by not working in it.
What?! You can come up with marketing campaigns to misguide and deceive the public, also makes your livelihood depends on it. But as long as you are not buying, then you are fine?!
The entire nestle company, from marketing, to research, to engineer, to accounting, are hired for one singular purpose: making people buy their products. people working in nestle are THE driving force for others to buy nestle product.
I understand life is complex and sometimes people have no choice, but that doesn’t make bad choice less bad, and unethical choice ethical. I wouldn’t judge people just because they work in nestle; but I would not work for nestle if I can.
Find me a company that is not evil. Should we become all eco-beekepers or starve?
Following your reasoning all marketing jobs should be unethical. Where do you draw the line?
No, working is not unethical no matter who pays you.
Reality is more complex than ideals.
Although it is true that no organization is perfect, there are certainly better companies v.s. worse companies. For example, I believe Linux foundation is more ethical than Nestle, Mozilla is more ethical than Facebook, world bank is more ethical than American military.
If all company is equally evil, then you probably won’t boycott nestle, because all of them are the same.
Hence, to me, there are certainly more ethical job than other jobs, depends what you are contributing to. I would argue a gardener in charge of planting and preserving local plants, is more ethical than CEO of nestle. Marketing at EFF is probably a more ethical job than marketing for nestle.
Of course, if you would starve when you don’t work for nestle, then the society has failed you, it is not your fault. This is why I said that I wouldn’t judge a person solely because they work at nestle, it really depends on their alternative.
I understand different person realize their ethical standards to different extent, I personally won’t accept a job from nestle, no matter how much they are paying me, if I have the opportunity to earn a living wage as a barista, waiter, janitor, cook, or any other job.
Finally, I believe “working is not unethical” seems misguided, by this logic CEO of nestle is ethical, he claim water shouldn’t be a human right, which indeed helps their company sell more product and make more money (like everyone else at nestle). By your reasoning, his claim should be completely ethical, just because making money is in his job description.
Like you said, real life is complicated, hence I believe blanketed statements like “working is not unethical” probably won’t hold true.
I think you are correct on most of it, but judging if somebody has or not alternatives is impossible. Of course everybody has alternatives, at least in the western world, but still lots of good and ethical people work for Nestlé.
It of course depends on the context and choice of ethics framework. If the decision is personal I like to use the shorthand: If you have the privilege to choose, then choose to build the type of future you want to live in.
Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
I started in defense, but I would now after 15+ years not do any work in defense or gambling or trading. It was a good experience for me though, taught me a lot, but I wouldn’t do it again now.
Would there be any aspect of defense you would consider? For example another comment mentioned situational awareness, etc. Basically weapons systems which might STOP them from being used on civilians?
No, I blacklisted the whole industry and will not take any job there.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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
Yes.
Pacifism is a moronic stance as a rule, born out of coddled overprivileged upbringings. War and weaponry have been a cornerstone of humanity since the first time a guy brained another guy with a rock.
Not building weapons simply means you’ll have fewer, nobody else will do you the courtesy of not attacking you because you were nice and didn’t proliferate.
There’s a reason the most peaceful country on earth, Switzerland, has most adults as trained members of the reserves, and everyone has access to state mandated weapons of war either in their homes or their local armouries.
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.
No
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.
