🤔... Most of the world now operates at a very superficial level of thinking... If a one minute Tik Tok can't sum it up its not worth mulling over, this is the reason the middle path has become an impossibility. Deeper debate can only happen if we first return to the basic fundamentals of human interaction which are accessible to all and understood by all:
There is also an aspect of this dilemma that has always befuddled me, and that is, do our individual actions really matter? Assume for the sake of argument that Mark's job really is immoral, and the weapons he is helping the create are causing unnecessary death and destruction all over the world.
The cynic/nihilist would say, "Well if he quits his job, he will quickly be replaced by another person with fewer pesky questions and moral qualms, and the net result will simply be that Mark and his family will have their lives made harder, the weapons will still be made."
The idealist would argue back, "But if enough people in the weapons industry started doing as Mark is doing and asking tough questions about the impact of their work in the world and subsequently leaving their jobs, then the cost of hiring an engineer to make weapons would go up, and which would ultimately make the production of those weapons harder."
Who is correct here? Maybe a bit of both. Recognize that our individual actions are borderline meaningless and don't unduly destroy our own lives in pursuit of some moral cause, but also try and live a life which you can reflect on later and be proud of, even if it's just for your own self-regard. I developed this opinion not from reading wise stoics, but from watching the movie I Heart Huckabees, so take that advice for what it's worth.
However, following the Stoic model of ethics, outcome is not actually what's matters. What matters is whether what you're saying and doing damages your character, though this is certainly going to be tied into attempts to have good outcomes. It's just that these things are ultimately judged inconsequential compared to the effect on character.
I believe that when someone starts reflecting on the moral aspect of their work, it at least means that they can’t just leave things as they are. Changing a company from the inside is an extremely difficult task, as a company is a system embedded within another system, which is part of an even more complex system. This makes companies resistant to individual attempts by a lone engineer to make meaningful changes. However, changing jobs to avoid being personally complicit in the deaths of innocent civilians might be a more realistic strategy.
At one point, I refused to coach consultants who were working with arms manufacturers. When I explained my moral reasoning in response to their "why?", they just laughed in my face and said, "Well, then you should stop working with grocery stores too, because military personnel shop there and buy food. Supermarkets 'collaborate' with them just like we do." Their arguments didn’t convince me, and mine didn’t convince them.
The choice I made two and a half years ago, when I left Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, came at a steep price. My income dropped by nearly six times, and my family is still struggling financially because of it. But I haven’t regretted my decision for a single day.
Heraclitus said, War is the father of all and the king of all, so of course, the production of weapons isn’t going to stop. But not participating personally in the creation of war, in my view, is a better choice than being complicit in its continuation.
I generally agree that war is not the answer, however, there are conflicts in which belligerent actors cannot be reasoned with, and thus must be confronted with force. Contrary to your opinion, I think NATO is the belligerent party in the Russian-Ukraine conflict, as they have refused and scuttled several attempts at peace(1). Thus Russia is morally justified in prosecuting the war to defend the ethnic Russians of the Donbas from neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine like the Azov Battallion.
I also think Biden ordered the destruction of Nordstream 2 to sever the EU's reliance on Russian gas, as all the motives and circumstantial evidence point in that direction (2). These are the kinds of people Putin is dealing with.
As a fellow defense contractor for many yeas I can relate. The profitability of those companies is in direct conflict with my libertarian tendencies of less war, more trade. They profit from warfare.
One element I think is missing in the anaysis is thinking about who the protagonist and antagonist are. In this case we have two existing conflicts with two very different angles.
1. Ukraine. vs. Russia - We are sending a ton of munitions for Ukraine which they are using to now strike into Russia.
2. Isreal vs. Hamas / Hezbollah - Lots of weapons going to there as they respond to Oct 7 and the ripples from that.
I'd be curious of 'Mark' delineates a value between on set of civilians and another. Are Russian civilians different than Palastinian Civilians? Because that means it isn't about civilians per se, that's a moral justification for something else IMO. There are a lot of layers to parse through for certain!
Do you feel relaxed in your personal comfort-bubble fully acknowledging that you are complicit in mass-murder ?
The answer depends only on upbringing and personal, entirely human integrity/character, the degree up to which a person is capable of hiding the results from his actions, however convoluted their relation may be.
🤔... Most of the world now operates at a very superficial level of thinking... If a one minute Tik Tok can't sum it up its not worth mulling over, this is the reason the middle path has become an impossibility. Deeper debate can only happen if we first return to the basic fundamentals of human interaction which are accessible to all and understood by all:
Honesty
Accountability
Transparency
Truth
BINGO !!! 👍👍👍
But in all modern mass-societies these four are "not needed" or intentionally made impossible ... therefore:
D E C E N T R A L I Z E and there's a chance people can claim them all back !!!
Nice title. Good hook!
There is also an aspect of this dilemma that has always befuddled me, and that is, do our individual actions really matter? Assume for the sake of argument that Mark's job really is immoral, and the weapons he is helping the create are causing unnecessary death and destruction all over the world.
The cynic/nihilist would say, "Well if he quits his job, he will quickly be replaced by another person with fewer pesky questions and moral qualms, and the net result will simply be that Mark and his family will have their lives made harder, the weapons will still be made."
The idealist would argue back, "But if enough people in the weapons industry started doing as Mark is doing and asking tough questions about the impact of their work in the world and subsequently leaving their jobs, then the cost of hiring an engineer to make weapons would go up, and which would ultimately make the production of those weapons harder."
Who is correct here? Maybe a bit of both. Recognize that our individual actions are borderline meaningless and don't unduly destroy our own lives in pursuit of some moral cause, but also try and live a life which you can reflect on later and be proud of, even if it's just for your own self-regard. I developed this opinion not from reading wise stoics, but from watching the movie I Heart Huckabees, so take that advice for what it's worth.
Excellent questions. To which we could add tons of similar dilemmas, such as if not eating animals makes a discernible impact on animal suffering: https://philarchive.org/archive/MCMAIO?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
However, following the Stoic model of ethics, outcome is not actually what's matters. What matters is whether what you're saying and doing damages your character, though this is certainly going to be tied into attempts to have good outcomes. It's just that these things are ultimately judged inconsequential compared to the effect on character.
I believe that when someone starts reflecting on the moral aspect of their work, it at least means that they can’t just leave things as they are. Changing a company from the inside is an extremely difficult task, as a company is a system embedded within another system, which is part of an even more complex system. This makes companies resistant to individual attempts by a lone engineer to make meaningful changes. However, changing jobs to avoid being personally complicit in the deaths of innocent civilians might be a more realistic strategy.
At one point, I refused to coach consultants who were working with arms manufacturers. When I explained my moral reasoning in response to their "why?", they just laughed in my face and said, "Well, then you should stop working with grocery stores too, because military personnel shop there and buy food. Supermarkets 'collaborate' with them just like we do." Their arguments didn’t convince me, and mine didn’t convince them.
The choice I made two and a half years ago, when I left Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, came at a steep price. My income dropped by nearly six times, and my family is still struggling financially because of it. But I haven’t regretted my decision for a single day.
Heraclitus said, War is the father of all and the king of all, so of course, the production of weapons isn’t going to stop. But not participating personally in the creation of war, in my view, is a better choice than being complicit in its continuation.
Always good to hear the perspective of someone who's wrestled with a similar issue. Way to take the high ground.
I generally agree that war is not the answer, however, there are conflicts in which belligerent actors cannot be reasoned with, and thus must be confronted with force. Contrary to your opinion, I think NATO is the belligerent party in the Russian-Ukraine conflict, as they have refused and scuttled several attempts at peace(1). Thus Russia is morally justified in prosecuting the war to defend the ethnic Russians of the Donbas from neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine like the Azov Battallion.
I also think Biden ordered the destruction of Nordstream 2 to sever the EU's reliance on Russian gas, as all the motives and circumstantial evidence point in that direction (2). These are the kinds of people Putin is dealing with.
(1)https://x.com/GabeZZOZZ/status/1703636824239788252
https://x.com/runews/status/1755860753456742829/video/1
(2) https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
As a fellow defense contractor for many yeas I can relate. The profitability of those companies is in direct conflict with my libertarian tendencies of less war, more trade. They profit from warfare.
One element I think is missing in the anaysis is thinking about who the protagonist and antagonist are. In this case we have two existing conflicts with two very different angles.
1. Ukraine. vs. Russia - We are sending a ton of munitions for Ukraine which they are using to now strike into Russia.
2. Isreal vs. Hamas / Hezbollah - Lots of weapons going to there as they respond to Oct 7 and the ripples from that.
I'd be curious of 'Mark' delineates a value between on set of civilians and another. Are Russian civilians different than Palastinian Civilians? Because that means it isn't about civilians per se, that's a moral justification for something else IMO. There are a lot of layers to parse through for certain!
Great point. "Mark" didn't say which conflict was on his mind, but I agree this matters.
Everything has a price ...
either in monetary- or in moral terms.
The final question would be:
Do you feel relaxed in your personal comfort-bubble fully acknowledging that you are complicit in mass-murder ?
The answer depends only on upbringing and personal, entirely human integrity/character, the degree up to which a person is capable of hiding the results from his actions, however convoluted their relation may be.