Do you think it is ethical to work for a company that builds drones, weaponry, or supplies parts to the military?
Do you think it is ethical to work for a company that builds drones, weaponry, or supplies parts to the military?
My opinion is threefold:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
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.
No.
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
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.
Fuck no.
No
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
As a rule of thumb... no.
No. I left the military because I couldn't morally justify staying in.
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.
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 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
No.
No.
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.
I don't think so, mostly because those companies are some of the worst manipulators of our democracy.
In terms of actually helping to manufacture weapons, there are necessary and ethical uses for those weapons, and you as an individual cannot choose where they go. Not an issue IMO.
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.
- The Good Place
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. That's a pretty huge assumption, though. Real life is rarely so simple.
The problem I have with working for military contractors is you never know wtf the government is going to do with them. When Trump was elected dude wanted to nuke a hurricane. Weapons in the wrong hands is very dangerous and is the biggest concern I have. Which is also kind of why I want a meritocracy system to stop stupid shit from happening.
Anyways, I diverge. If you had no other choice than to work for a company that kills people then maybe? Lots of those guys also do space exploration or something as well so I'm sure you could find something without making weapons.
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.
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.
Definitely not if you have the opportunity to work somewhere else.
Of course not
Obviously not, as you might have heard, those things are used to kill people.
Absolutely not.
Yes Ukraine is an example of a good use for a defense industry but US history is littered with tragedies, massacres and massive amounts of suffering from all the other bad things having a defense industry does.
Yes. Defense is important. Pacifism is unworkable in today's geopolitical sphere. Weapons create peace.
Some military devices help prevent conflict and minimize its harm. A lot of modern warfare is increasing situational awareness. For example, radar, night vision, surveillance, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, tactical communications, and signals intelligence. Of course, these technologies can be used in a way that harms as well. But the alternative is a blind slugfest that probably harms a lot more civilians and friendly fire.
This is something I wrestle with sometimes as an engineering student and I think it does vary from country to country. You’ve got to ask yourself how the world would be different without those companies - whether other less friendly countries would come to prominence and whether the removal of the such a deterrence would make wars more common. But on the other hand, you should think about how those weapons are used and whether it’s ‘right’ like the defence of Ukraine, or more objectionable like some of the more polarising conflicts around the world. It’s a very difficult question but personally I don’t think I would work for a weapons company coz I don’t know how I’d feel about making something that is designed to kill people
No - it's not ethical.
Very little evil is actually a direct result of evil people doing evil things. The vast majority of it comes to be through ordinary people doing banal things - things that, like building weapons, are questionable at best, but that they excuse because it's "out of my control."
The thing is that it's not out of their control. Yes - if one individual makes the decision to not take part, that's not going to have much of an effect, but if every person who feels the same way makes that same choice, that absolutely WILL have an effect.
And there's only one way to make it so that every person who feels the same way makes that choice, and that's for each one of them, individually, to look past that "it's out of my control" bullshit excuse and go ahead and do it.
Everything on any significant scale is out of individual control. Individuals just possess a very limited amount of control over affairs on a national, much less global, scale. But that's really entirely beside the point. The point is how you choose to exercise the small amount of control you have. Will you use it for good, or for evil?
Collectively, no. Personally, yes. People deserve to make a living.
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.
Was the reason I quit my last job.
no and ive always refused to do it but actually im fucked now so maybe i would
If it was to like the Japanese self defense force? Sure.
If it's to the US and going towards bombing civilians all across the world? Hell no.Why shouldn't you?
It depends on whether the military you’re selling it to behave ethically.
Weapons aren’t inherently bad. Every organism has weapons. It’s all about how you use them.
Depends on the country.
Hell no
It's ethical, the parts will be made whether you work that job or not, and you're only responsible for the actions of the military to the extent that you're able to change them.
Since none of your reasonable options will make an impact on the production or use of those items, it's not a ethical issue for you to work there.
What matters much more is your ability to provide for yourself and those around you.
Yes. I don't want my effort to be dedicated to death and destruction. Imagine you're the guy who designed the iconic Tomahawk cruise missile. You can't mistake that profile. Every time you see or hear about one of those things being launched you know there's a good chance many people are going to die. Who wants that on their conscience?
Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
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.
yes
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.
Orthogonal to ethics. If you'd specify a country, then I could answer that question.
It's fine. The designers of a weapon aren't responsible for how its used.
By asking the question, you've already decided.
Who would win: one American who thinks about ethics or 5 hungry Chinese who don't even know the word "ethics"?