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.
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.
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?
Counterpoint: what about all the weapons used by Ukraine to defend itself and western democracy against Russian aggression and imperialism? Should those not have been made?
I wish I had a thorough answer for you, but I’m afraid it would be very, very complicated. This war came out of a complex situation and we (westerners) can understand only a fraction of it all.
But I give you just a simple idea to think about:
Imagine all these weapons would not have existed, on both sides, then maybe there would have been a war anyway, but probably much less killing and suffering.
you make an interesting point and it reminds me of a counter point: that modern wars might have higher death tolls than historical wars, but modern wars - with modern weapons - end up costing less life overall compared to the populations of the time.
for tribal conflict of humans past, victory could mean wiping out the other tribe - 50% death toll or higher. as weapons advanced and more efficient and more destructive tactics emerged, wars can be more violent and more deadly but shorter and with fewer deaths compared to the overall population. wars became efficient.
all this is to say that if we didn’t have modern weapons there would be more killing - not less. “victory” would necessitate more deaths.
wars can be […] shorter
I’m not so sure about that - appears like a theoretical argument to me. Today’s real wars are going much too long to let this look plausible.
You’d have to read historical facts if you really want to compare wars. I would simply think about some people fighting with bare hands, and they get exhausted after only a few minutes (and may decide to make peace then), while some people fighting with guns can do that easily for years.
I agree with you in theory, but the current reality just does not give a fuck about wishful thinking. As long as there are despots like Putin, Xi Jinping, et al., who see our democratic values as a threat to their own autocratic victims we simply have to live with the fact that we have to build weapons to deter their imperialistic goals.
Now that is not only too simple thinking, but it is also not true. As far as your weapons are used there, it is for your own imperialistic goals.
So you prefer autocracies over democracies? Am I understanding you correctly?
Now you are mixing up things badly. The answer is No. You are not understanding.
I think I am understanding you very well. You say democratic imperialism is just as bad as autocratic imperialism, creating a false balance when you agree that autocracies are inherently worse for humanity than democracies. Furthermore, Ukraine was attacked by a far more capable force than their own. They, by the very definition of imperialism, cannot be imperialistic by simply fighting for its own survival against an autocratic and clearly imperialist Russia.
In peacetime, countries do not make as many weapons as they can. They make as many weapons as they think they need, based on how many weapons they think their rivals have. So when you make a weapon, you also make a lot of other countries make weapons. And this weapon buildup increases the risk of war.
In a perfectly peaceful world where autocracies can live side by side with democracies you may have a point. But autocratic Russia’s war of aggression on democratic Ukraine certainly paints a different picture to your wishful thinking. The lesson for democratic countries is therefore clear: If you don’t want to be invaded by uncooperative and irrational autocracies, you have to build up as much military capacity as your unpredictable systemic rivals. Remind me again, who had the military advantage by sheer numbers in the war on Ukraine?
If you don’t want to be invaded by uncooperative and irrational autocracies, you have to build up as much military capacity as your unpredictable systemic rivals.
Every resource spent on weapons is a resource not spent on infrastructure / education / what have you. Military expenditure is at best a necessary evil; a better option is to have just enough weapons to stop an enemy’s initial attack, and to invest the rest of your resources into building industrial capacity that can be used for military production if the need arises.
Remind me again, who had the military advantage by sheer numbers in the war on Ukraine?
Russia doesn’t calculate how many weapons it needs to produce depending on how many Ukraine has. It’s main threats are the other superpowers - the US and China. So of course in a conflict with Ukraine they will have a massive advantage.
Your first paragraph ist simply paraphrasing my entire comment, so you agree with me. Regarding your second paragraph: Then why did they attack and invade Ukraine, if it is neither a threat nor a rivaling power? Kind of looks like Ukraine having not enough arms to defend itself was one of the prime motives for Russia.
Right, I’m not saying countries should dismantle their armies, just that weapon manufacturing and stockpiling should be avoided as far as possible unless your country is under attack.
Ukraine was similarly lacking in arms from 1990 to 2014. Russia only felt the need to attack when it felt threatened that Ukraine might join NATO, because that could result in US troops on its doorstep.
Ah yea, Ukrainian does not want to follow orders for Russia or even considers joining NATO is for sure a very valid reason to attack, murder and rape Ukrainians! I totally forgot about this brilliant piece of Russian propaganda! But thanks for read from the Putin bible for us!!! I think the idea of all weapons are bad, is a idea born by people far far away from any dictators or aggressive neighbors etc. if you go to Ukraine, South Korea, Taiwan or Surinam, then you might realize this is a luxury stance. Not every redneck needs a AR, but there are people who only sink ships in the read sea, because fuck everyone else. I think working in defense is not bad, as long as you do not try to sell your tech to dictators or Mexican drug cartels. So it would be good if the company complies to certain values…
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”.
If you’re worried about ethics, it’s going to be very difficult finding a job that will make you a living that is ethical.
I mean… you can upstream everything. I work for a place that sells outdoor sports gear. Pretty benign unless you do a deep dive into supply chains and the like.
For the record, I did work at a place the built parts for cruise missiles. It sucked. I quit
Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
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 mean … not saying I necessarily agree, but isn’t the logical counter argument being defense and deterrence?
I use to be much much more ideologically against arms production, but honestly, seeing what’s happening in Ukraine has given me some pause and caused me to reflect a lot. When a tyrant like Putin can amass a huge amount of weaponry and just decide to invade and impose a totalitarian dictatorship on a neighbouring country, and the only thing that has stopped him is a mass amount of better weaponry, it muddies the moral waters a bit.
Depends on the country.
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.
do you feel what the united states spends on its military is proportionate to its direct defense requirement?
i think were up to 950b/year in ‘danger’
Honestly, I’m not wise/educated enough to give a certain answer. I sure feel like there’s a lot more spending being done than is probably required, and the DoD has failed multiple audits for 6 years now. So there’s cause for concern or at least accountability about where the US taxpayer’s money is ending up. The DoD budget could buy a lot of infrastructure, teachers, healthcare, debt relief, etc. so it’s not unreasonable for citizens to want to know what they’re gaining in exchange for giving those things up.
On the other hand, I live in Canada and the hard truth is we rely on the USA for a lot of our military needs. I know if Putin decides Ukraine isn’t enough and he starts eyeing Canadian land (say in the Arctic), then I’m going to want to know NATO can win. My final take is probably that US military spending could be moderated, but cuts should be made carefully with justification.
Obviously not, as you might have heard, those things are used to kill people.
Yes. Defense is important. Pacifism is unworkable in today’s geopolitical sphere. Weapons create peace.
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.
From my perspective, definitely if for Ukraine. I think it depends on what you can reasonably infer the weapons will be used for. If that use lines up with your beliefs, go for it.
YouTube has taught me that weapons are only used against menacing watermelons and disturbed canisters, in your backyard.
/s
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 also doesn’t make bad choice less bad, and unethical choice less unethical. 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, because making money for nestle 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.
