|
|
|
|
|
by nchi3
1507 days ago
|
|
If the alternative meant starving, I'd agree. That's rarely the case for software developers though, so I think it definitely shows of their values. Doing it "for the money" is not a free card to do anything unethical when it's easy to say no and get another job. An extreme example: Was voluntarily being a guard in Auschwitz fine because it was legal? Should you be able to get away with saying "I only did it for this money"? |
|
why is starving the arbitrary line in the sand? Why isn't "a great home in a HCOL area" the line? Or some other line? Ethics is subjective to each person - this is why if there's actions that shouldn't be taken, it ought to be encoded in law, rather than as ethics.
The bottom line is, by saying that other people ought to have more "ethical consideration" when they have to make an economic sacrifice to enact that ethical consideration, you're also implying that they should be sacrificing their own benefit for your benefit. It's hypocrisy adjacent.
I'm all for advocacy in lawmaking to ensure that bossware or spyware is illegal. But i would certainly not look down on someone who is currently making such software - after all, it's not their fault that this software is being made.
> An extreme example:
yes, i would. The guards at auschwitz may not be nazis, or they may be. Them working there is no indication of what their personal sense of ethics are. That's why you don't fight the guards, but against the central gov't that is actually imposing nazi-ism.