[chii]

> If the alternative meant starving, I'd agree.

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.

[nchi3]

I think everyone is responsible for doing what they can to contribute towards a better society, not only governments and law makers. That also means you're responsible for the actions you make which does the opposite, whether you get paid for it or not. If someone values having a great home over contributing to a better world, that obviously does tell of that person's values.

Starving is not very "arbitrary" because it means life or death, and you can't expect people to choose death over doing something unethical.

If more people say no to doing unethical things (or show disapproval of those things being done), it'll be harder and more expensive for companies to find people who will do said things. Software engineers working in online gambling make a lot more where I live, which makes that industry less profitable. That's way more effective than waving signs on the street.

Why do you feel that you can't be held accountable for your actions as long as you get paid for it? Do you not want a better world? Or do you think it's up to others to do something about it, and not you?

[chii]

> values having a great home over contributing to a better world

which is what everyone already does. After all, everyone continues to burn fossil fuels, even if they know it's contributing to pollution.

The point is that it is natural and acceptable for an individual to ensure their own comfort and wellbeing, to the extend allowable by law. Why would one suffer any sacrifice, if they do not directly see the effects of that sacrifice benefiting themselves?

This is why there's a need for gov't and regulation and laws. Collectively, people can agree not to take action which would benefit oneself at the expense of somebody else. This cannot happen unilaterally.

> Do you not want a better world?

of course i want a better world. Who doesnt? The question isn't whether one wants a better world - the question is whether you will be willing to sacrifice more than your neighbour for this better world, if the neighbour is going to be able to gain the same benefits from your sacrifice without having to sacrifice his own.

[alsetmusic]

> The question isn't whether one wants a better world - the question is whether you will be willing to sacrifice more than your neighbour for this better world, if the neighbour is going to be able to gain the same benefits from your sacrifice without having to sacrifice his own.

This sort of thinking is why we’re facing such terrible conditions.

But it’s fine. I’ll recycle even if my brother has said he doesn’t see the point. I’ll walk short distances that my buddy drives. And I’ll resent that people like them (and apparently you) are too self-important to endure a bit of discomfort because it’s the right thing to do for the good of the species.

Apologies that this is harsh and combative. I find the attitude above very hostile towards our shared future.