[mgobl]

Not only do I disagree with the premise, but I think the article is poorly argued.

Was working on the Manhattan project unethical because it furnished the ability for us to kill humans on an even more vast industrial scale than we previously could have imagined? Perhaps, but it's hard to square this with the reality that the capability of mutually assured destruction has ushered in the longest period of relative peace and global stability in recorded history, during a period of time we might otherwise expect dramatically increased conflict and strife (because we are sharing our limited planet with an additional order of magnitude of humans). Had everyone at Los Alamos boycotted the effort, would we be in a better place when some other power inevitably invented the atomic bomb? Somehow I doubt it.

The world is a complex system. While there are hopefully an expanding set of core "values" that we collectively believe in, any single person is going to be challenged by conflicting values at times. This is like the Kagan stages of psychological development [1], but societally. I can believe that it's net bad for society that someone is working on a cigarette manufacturing line, without personally holding them accountable for the ills that are downstream of their work. There are competing systems (family, society) that place competing values (good - we can afford to live, bad - other people get sick and die) on the exact same work.

If people want to boycott some types of work, more power to them, but I don't think the line between "ethical" and "unethical" tasks is so clear that you can put whole corporations on one side or another of that line.

Sometimes I try and put a dollar amount on how much value I have received from Google in my lifetime. I've used their products for at least 20 years. Tens of thousands of dollars seems like an accurate estimate. I'm happy to recognize that two things are true: that there are societal problems with some big tech businesses that we would collectively benefit from solving AND that I (and millions of other people less fortunate than me, that couldn't "afford" the non-ad-supported cost of these services) have benefited tremendously from the existence of Google and its ilk.

[1]: https://imgur.com/a/LSkzutj

[quotemstr]

> Was working on the Manhattan project unethical because it furnished the ability for us to kill humans on an even more vast industrial scale than we previously could have imagined? Perhaps, but it's hard to square this with the reality that the capability of mutually assured destruction has ushered in the longest period of relative peace and global stability in recorded history

Ah, consequentialist versus deontological ethics: neither camp can even hear the other. Some people just pattern-match making thing X (weapons, profits, patents, non-free software, whatever) against individual behavior and condemn individuals doing these things regardless of the actual effects on the real world. Sure, invading Japan instead of bombing it would have killed a million Americans and who knows how many Japanese (real WW2 allied estimate), but ATOM BOMB BAD and PEOPLE WHO DO BAD, and so we get people who treat Los Alamos as some kind of moral black hole.

The world makes sense only when we judge actions by their consequences. The strident and brittle deontological rules that writers of articles that feature the wor d"ethics" in the headline invariably promote are poor approximations of the behaviors that lead to good consequences in the world.

[int_19h]

> invading Japan instead of bombing it would have killed a million Americans and who knows how many Japanese (real WW2 allied estimate),

Most people who believe that nuclear strikes on Japan were morally wrong also believe that Japan would have surrendered regardless, and nukes were thus redundant (and hence, wrong).

If you studied this question, you should know that there's a compelling argument that Japanese were motivated just as much if not more by Soviets entering the fray with considerable success. Now, you may personally disagree with this assessment, but surely you can at least recognize that others can legitimately hold this opinion and base their ethical calculus on it?

[karaterobot]

> The world makes sense only when we judge actions by their consequences.

I'm not sure I agree with this part. To quote Gene Wolfe: "until we reach the end of time we don’t know whether something is good or bad, we can only judge the intentions of those who acted." Judging morals by outcome seems like a tricky path down a slippery slope. The Manhattan Project is morally complicated, both because the intentions of those involved was complicated, and because the outcome was complicated. What's wrong to do, I think, is simplifying it down to "was good" or "was bad".

[aporetics]

I don’t really understand the categories you’ve set up or the traditions you’re referring to, but it seems like consequentialist ethics would be good as a historical exercise, but not much else. Because we mostly don’t know what will happen when we act, at least not with the clarity that that kind of analysis would need. I think the implicit ethical problem here is that there’s not much any individual can do that will have a measurable effect when it comes to entities as large and powerful as big tech (or any other industry). So then how do you think about making ethical decisions?

[g-b-r]

> that I (and millions of other people less fortunate than me, that couldn't "afford" the non-ad-supported cost of these services) have benefited tremendously from the existence of Google and its ilk.

People who were into Google seem to tremendously overestimate the value it provided.

The only Google thing I ever used is Android, and only because it's too hard to avoid it.

Had there not been Google you'd have used alternative services, and your life would not have been much worse.

Yes, a similarly good search engine would have emerged, similar products would have been devised, and the internet would have been ad-supported as it already was before Google.

[stickfigure]

I used Altavista, Lycos, Yahoo, etc in the era before Google - and it was worse.

If you're suggesting that some other company besides Google would have worked out the same algorithms and business plan, then this seems incoherent. Even if true, we'd be here discussing how much value we've gotten from Notgoogle. It's still a tremendous amount of value, whatever the company is named.

[g-b-r]

> I used Altavista, Lycos, Yahoo, etc in the era before Google - and it was worse.

I guess you were only talking about the search engine, then.

The technology was ready, PageRank was inspired by other work, and Google came to a good degree out of government grants.

And by the way, the search engine I was using when Google came out (I think it was Northern Light, but I might be mistaken) was not significantly worse; Altavista and Yahoo were definitely among the worst engines by then

> If you're suggesting that some other company besides Google would have worked out the same algorithms and business plan, then this seems incoherent.

Why incoherent?

Had another company done exactly the same but with a different name, yeah, not much would have changed...

But there was no need for things to go this way, for the products you love to emerge; they just, probably, would have been made by several companies, rather than all by one.

But actually, there have always been alternatives to Google's products, it was just your choice to not use them; you could probably have gotten a similar value without ever touching a Google product.

[titanomachy]

I agree that competitors have caught up now, but there was a time when Google Translate and Google Maps (for example) were the only game in town. I tried most competitors, and they were all nearly useless in comparison.

[spencerflem]

I've been trying to live a relatively de-google'd life right now, and much like you say, it's not so hard. Google Maps is the big exception for me.