[JohnFen]

I could not agree more.

We are all responsible for our actions and the results our actions cause. "I was just following orders" in no way absolves anyone of that responsibility.

That you may pay a price for doing the right thing doesn't make avoiding doing it acceptable.

[BizarreByte]

When that cost includes possibly losing everything your worked for and your kids suffering it ceases to be so clear cut.

If the society you live in won't look out for you in these situations, why should you look out for it? Take care of you and yours first.

[JohnFen]

> it ceases to be so clear cut.

I think it's still clear cut. Losing everything is a lamentable disaster, to be sure, but that doesn't change the ethics of the situation.

> If the society you live in won't look out for you in these situations

It's not some faceless "society", it's actual people, including the specific people you know. If you're willing to do things that are harmful to others, you're actively working to make the world worse for everyone -- including yourself and those you love.

[generic92034]

For me that is a bit too simple (no offense meant). If you are threatened you have to balance the harm you would be suffering by not complying with the harm you would be causing by complying.

[JohnFen]

I wasn't really saying differently. What I'm saying is that if you choose to do something you know is wrong -- even if it you feel there is no other option -- you're still doing wrong and are responsible for that.

[generic92034]

True, but sometimes you are caught between a rock and a hard place. While it does not change the responsibility for your decision, it changes the ethics.

[evantbyrne]

Gross negligence can have serious consequences. Software developers aren't immune to litigation.

[__MatrixMan__]

It seems to me that killing off organizations that do harm in your community goes right along with taking care of you and yours first.

[hsavit1]

not everyone has the ability to quit their jobs on the spot for morality sake. there is no social safety net in america. people can't risk losing their jobs and health insurance

[hanzmanner]

Are you talking specifically about engineering? If you have strong ethical disagreements with your current employer, start prepping for interviews. Start early. Invest 2-3 months. Starts interviewing. Sign an offer. Then quit. I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting a sole family provider should just quit on an arbitrary day and lose their health insurance.

[JohnFen]

Sure they can. People lose their jobs without notice every day and while it's often a horrible situation, it's one that people can and do recover from.

But I'm not even really arguing that people who do bad things because they want to avoid harmful repercussions must choose differently. I'm arguing that people who do that are choosing to do something unethical, and we are what we do.

Perhaps the ethical tradeoff makes some practical sense for some -- but it's still an ethical tradeoff.

[tekla]

Then you aren't an engineer. You are just a cog.

[pierat]

Unless you are independently wealthy, you are indeed a cog. Maybe you're a well paid cog. But you're still a cog.

Even doctors have to work for a living. That makes them a cog too.

Nothing wrong with seeing where you fit, and securing your future with strategic choices to get away from toxic shit. But you're still a cog.

And you can be an engineer and still be a cog.

The other name for a "cog" is a proletariat.

[zmgsabst]

Engineers are bourgeoisie.

[hsavit1]

Some engineers and part of the professional managerial class. Many (if not most) engineers are proletarians

[zmgsabst]

Engineers are not part of the proletariat, at all. There are no working class engineers.

However, many members of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie LARP as proletariat — particularly academics.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/02/middle-class-income-in-major....