Comment by jfindper

Comment by jfindper 2 days ago

Not the parent.

I believe that they are bringing up a moral argument. Which I'm sympathetic too, having quit a job before because I found that my personal morals didn't align with the company, and the cognitive dissonance to continue working there was weighing heavily on me. The money wasn't worth the mental fight every day.

So, yes, in some cases it is better to be "right" and be forced out of business than "wrong" and remain in business. But you have to look beyond just revenue numbers. And different people will have different ideas of "right" and "wrong", obviously.

arthurfirst 2 days ago

Moral arguments are a luxury of thinkers and only a small percentage of people can be reasoned with that way anyways. You can manipulate on morals but not reason in most cases.

Agreed that you cannot be in a toxic situation and not have it affect you -- so if THAT is the case -- by all means exit asap.

If it's perceived ethical conflict the only one you need to worry about is the golden rule -- and I do not mean 'he who has the gold makes the rules' I mean the real one. If that conflicts with what you are doing then also probably make an exit -- but many do not care trust me... They would take everything from you and feel justified as long as they are told (just told) it's the right thing. They never ask themselves. They do not really think for themselves. This is most people. Sadly.

Reply View 0 replies

anonymars 2 days ago

But the parent didn't really argue anything, they just linked to a Wikipedia article about Raytheon. Is that supposed to intrinsically represent "immorality"?

Have they done more harm than, say, Meta?

Reply View 5 replies

jfindper 2 days ago

>they just linked to a Wikipedia article about Raytheon
Yeah, that's why I took a guess at what they were trying to say.
>Is that supposed to intrinsically represent "immorality"?
What? The fact that they linked to Wikipedia, or specifically Raytheon?
Wikipedia does not intrinsically represent immorality, no. But missile manufacturing is a pretty typical example, if not the typical example, of a job that conflicts with morals.
>Have they done more harm than, say, Meta?
Who? Raytheon? The point I'm making has nothing to do with who sucks more between Meta and Raytheon.

Reply View | 1 reply
- anonymars 2 days ago
  
  Well, sure, I'm not disagreeing with the original point about moral choice, and in fact I agree with it (though I also think that's a luxury, as someone else pointed out).
  But if someone wants to make some blanket judgement, I am asking for a little more effort. For example, I wonder if they would think the same as a Ukrainian under the protection of Patriot missiles? (also produced by Raytheon)
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
buildsjets 2 days ago

Here are Raytheon part markings on the tail kit of a GBU-12 Paveway glide bomb that Raytheon sold to a corrupt third word dictator, who used that weapon to murder the attendees of an innocent wedding in a country he was feuding with.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/middle-east/2018/04/27/ameri...
I know the part number of every airplane part I have ever designed by heart, and I would be horrified to see those part numbers in the news as evidence of a mass murder.
So, what is your moral justification for defending one of the world’s largest and despised weapons manufacturers? Are you paid to do it or is it just pro-bono work?

Reply View | 2 replies
- anonymars 2 days ago
  
  Excuse me, do you make personal attacks on anyone who dares ask for an actual reasoned argument?
  Most if not all aerospace companies also produce military aircraft, right? Or is your reasoning that if your particular plane doesn't actually fire the bullets, then there's no moral dilemma?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- arthurfirst 2 days ago
  
  Defending? I am simply pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic.
  If you think Raytheon is the apex evil corporation you are very mistaken. There is hardly any separation between mega corps and state above a certain level. The same people are in majority control of IBM, Procter & Gamble, Nike, and Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc, etc.
  Stop consuming marketing materials as gospel.
  What you see as this or that atrocity on CNN or whatever that is produced *propaganda*, made for you, and you are swallowing it blindly without thinking.
  Also the responsibility is of course down to individuals and their actions-- whether you know their names or not. Objects do not go to war on their own.
  I've also worked in aerospace and aviation software but that doesn't preclude me from thinking clearly about whether I'm responsible for this or that thing on the news involving planes -- you might want to stop consuming that.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies