ethics

[sethg at ropine.com (Seth Gordon)]

Mark Richards wrote:
> 
> As to the apologetic for working on government projects where Adam
> presents the true mix of intents (peace, war, and defense) that come
> under the "DOD" umbrella, I would offer a related yet more severe analog
> where an offensive weapons targeting system is centrally placed in a
> public apartment building.  One is used to shield the other.  "You
> cannot seperate [sic] these actions from those which you might object
> without dismantling the DoD", Adam says.  Gotta admit it - this is
> certainly a problem just as it is in the "safe house".

If we're going to use this analogy...

>From my reading of the Geneva Conventions, if Country A is attacking
Country B, and Country B starts putting military hardware in a civilian
area, the hardware does not become *totally* off-limits to Country A.
Rather, Country A is obliged to leave the military objective alone if
(a) there are equally valuable targets that aren't so entangled with
civilians, or (b) the incidental loss of civilian life[*] would outweigh
the military advantage gained by destroying the target.  If neither of
these conditions hold, Country A is allowed to attack the target, but
has to do so in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.  (See Article
28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 57 of Protocol I.)

Carrying that rule back into our discussion of working for a defense
contractor, if you have the chance to work for a company whose products
have both pleasant and unpleasant effects on society, you have to make a
moral judgement based on (a) what other equally attractive job
opportunities you have, and (b) whether the social benefit of the thing
you are contributing to would outweigh the social loss.  (E.g., I would
have serious qualms about taking a job associated with the Strategic
Defense Initiative, because I think the whole program is a boondoggle
that encourages nuclear proliferation.)

[*] If you want to read the Conventions in an amoral and cynical way,
dead civilians from Country A cause a "loss" to Country B in the sense
that they create bad PR for Country B among potential allies, and they
stir up resentment that will make it harder from Countries A and B to
reach a political settlement once both sides are tired of shooting at
each other.  The maxim "war is politics by other means" is a knife that
cuts in both directions.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.