[oinksoft]

My views are painted by pacifism, so nothing is as bad to me as producing military technology, or providing talent for the military industrial complex. Your Facebook example harps on some of the evils of capitalism (manipulative advertisements and such), but given the way the world works right now, even if you live in North Korea, you are born into that (black markets, etc. which of course beat having no economic freedom any day).

Enabling surveillance is a distant second, but still certainly wrong because it is direct support for the robbing of privacy, a basic human dignity. There is no room for ambiguity or argument as in the case of economic theory and such, like in the Facebook example.

[rayiner]

Look at it from a purely numerical standpoint. How much is lost when a teenager buys a $100 pair of Ralph Lauren jeans when a pair that is identical in all but brand-name could be produced for $20 or so? That is the opportunity cost of that money to that kid?

Military technology kills a few people (large harms to a few people), but advertising diverts vast amounts of money towards industries where it is easy to take advantage of cognitive biases to create artificial distinctions between products (small harms to lots of people). And both have their legitimate justifications too. People need to know about new products and services and advertising helps them find those products and services. And while you may be a pacifist, Americans are decidedly not. They want a country that sits at the top of the world and they want to be protected from hostility and Lockeed gives Americans what they want in that regard.

And even for a pacifist: we live in the most peaceful time in human history. American military supremacy, plays a big part in maintaining that state of affairs. Countries that might be incentivized to wage war (as countries have done since there were countries), avoid doing so because they know the American military response will be swift and overwhelming.

[oinksoft]

Using war or the threat of war to apprehend peace is antithetical to pacifism.

I'm not sure what the American populace's purported will has to do with my view that war and its antecedents are revolting. Certainly you aren't suggesting that building these things is patriotic duty for a US citizen?

[anigbrowl]

I think Rayiner is a consequentialist (as I am) - judging by quality of outcomes. This doesn't work for everything (since we lack foresight), so I'm a reluctant deontologist, in general; but lacking an obvious or enforceable ontology, consequentialism all the way, baby.

[mpyne]

> Using war or the threat of war to apprehend peace is antithetical to pacifism.

I agree, but keep in mind the person-to-person analog: "Using force or the threat of force to apprehend personal safety is antithetical to pacifism." I.e. there is a convincing philosophical argument that once you agree that people have the right to use force in self-defense, that there is a collective right to use military force for collective self-defense.

[oinksoft]

Precisely. I can't speak for all pacifists, but many, like Tolstoy, outright reject personal self-defense, at least in theory. That is to say, while it is very difficult for man to give up defense of oneself and one's family (probably for good reason), a pacifist does not see the self-defender as morally pristine. The great danger is when self-defense is given priority over other means of resolving or fleeing violence. If you believe the state's case, then I think the Zimmerman murder trial is a perfect example of zealous self-defense.

[mpyne]

Well stated.