Other Software > Developer's Corner
Ethics in Technology
40hz:
Well said 40hz! I was thinking along similar lines but couldn't quite articulate it. Just because some laws are bad and laws don't equal morality or ethics doesn't mean that we shouldn't *try to make laws more ethical and moral*, i.e. try to make them *good* laws.
- Oshyan
-JavaJones (October 02, 2015, 04:33 PM)
--- End quote ---
Exactly. I'd rather take a stand and go down fighting the good fight rather than just take the bug-out option and become a full time evader or new style "revolutionary." (The real revolutionaries must be rolling in their graves every time the neo-revs call themselves by that name.) I'm still romantic (or possibly naive) enough to think intelligently and consistently standing up to the abuses of authority (and not abandoning the moral high ground in the process) will always be the most optimal strategy when it comes to fighting the long fight. And most things in human society that are genuinely worth fighting for tend to involve very long battles. At least if human history is anything to go by.
Besides, I've already paid a hefty enough price from time to time for doing just that. So I might as well finish out my round rather than quit the table this late in the game.
Like I said, I'm a romantic. And probably naive as well. But so be it. I'm good with that. ;D
TaoPhoenix:
So, given the insanity that VW is facing, I certainly can't blame them for skirting idiotic laws.
-Renegade (October 02, 2015, 01:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
If you truly believe that, that's pretty sad Ren. Even coming from someone who likes to occasionally throw the proverbial "alligator over the transom" just to get people thinking and talking. (Which is something I can appreciate. ;) )
...
If the so-called bad regulations could be shown for what they are, they'd get changed in fairly short order. Figure a year or two at most. Because the one place you can always hit an American, and be guaranteed to get their full attention, is their checkbook.
Sorry. Bad laws need to be confronted. Not sidestepped because someone claims that "better information" or a "higher reality" is guiding them. That's the same argument that's used to justify "teaching the controversy" in public schools. Or denying access to information abput legal medical alternatives to women who, out of necessity, attend publicly funded health clinics. Or deciding there's a "higher truth" that grants you an exemption from your sworn duty as a public official to uniformly issue marriage licenses.
If everyone gets to have their own private laws and interpretations, you're heading toward an eventual breakdown of any legal system that allows it to become commonplace. And that can only result in a far greater set of problems for our society than the problem of a bad regulation itself. Because that's claiming privilege - from the Latin privilegium meaning "law applying to one person, bill of law in favor of or against an individual." And that's hardly a way to run a society based on shared freedoms, rights, and legal protections - no matter how flawed the attempts taken to achieve those goals.
-40hz (October 02, 2015, 02:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
About "nothing immoral about skipping a law" is just dangerous. The "true situation" is that people should be moral to begin with, certain people are sleazy, so a good law gets there to add some teeth and haul them back in line. So breaking a good law ... should be a bad thing.
So then yes, then bad laws get in there. Then you wonder how to stay moral in the face of a bad law. That's where the chaos ensues. But it's also not enough to "show" a bad law - the web now is pretty good at doing that. You have to find *other* reasons that make the people who put in the bad law for their own uses, to find it now *worse* to have that law there.
So adding a new industry to this, I'm staring at a Fascinating new wrinkle going on at Cheerios via General Mills. They decided to go for the certification of Gluten Free, which they seem to be succeding at. So a fairly good law is some reg that says "to legally qualify for the cert you need less than 20 parts per million grains to be gluten containing." So maybe a fourth rate knock off cereal would just fudge it and then should get slammed for it. So it's a pretty good law. And Cheerios seems to be pulling it off unless a scandal comes to light later. So then yay them.
Renegade:
Hey @40hz! Good to see you back here! You've been sorely missed!
But that doesn't mean we will agree on everything. :D
(PS - I'm a couple bottle of merlot in, so don't expect too much. ;) )
If VW were so convinced of the insanity of existing EPA regs, why didn't they publicly challenge them, ideally in conjunction with the other major auto manufacturers, if the existing and planned future regulations were so obviously going in the wrong direction?
-40hz (October 02, 2015, 02:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think that you are massively over-estimating the ability of the industry to reason with government.
We are NOT talking about some kind of rational topic here. This is a purely religious topic. Climate and emmissions and the like are NOT topics for logical debate. They are religious topics. Reason need not apply, because it will be repelled.
How do you reason with religious extremists? You can't. And climate isn't a topic where you can have a reasonable discussion. The topic is toxic and there is no good will in the discussion.
For examples of other toxic discussions:
* Vaccines
* Climate
* Abortion
* Death penalty
* Economics
Those topics are purely toxic and you CANNOT have a rational discussion on them.
There are many more toxic topics, but those are just a few.
Trying to have those discussion inside of politics is simply worse. There is ZERO good will. The only position to take is that of actual evidence and reality, which has no bearing on politics.
Assuming that the laws are correct is silly.
But, I'm too drunk to flush out more of the nonsense here. I know that many people disagree with me, but hey... at least I provide you all with some kind of fun outlet to hammer on! :D
8)
TaoPhoenix:
Hey @40hz! Good to see you back here! You've been sorely missed!
But that doesn't mean we will agree on everything. :D
(PS - I'm a couple bottle of merlot in, so don't expect too much. ;) )
If VW were so convinced of the insanity of existing EPA regs, why didn't they publicly challenge them, ideally in conjunction with the other major auto manufacturers, if the existing and planned future regulations were so obviously going in the wrong direction?
-40hz (October 02, 2015, 02:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think that you are massively over-estimating the ability of the industry to reason with government.
We are NOT talking about some kind of rational topic here. This is a purely religious topic. Climate and emmissions and the like are NOT topics for logical debate. They are religious topics. Reason need not apply, because it will be repelled.
How do you reason with religious extremists? You can't. And climate isn't a topic where you can have a reasonable discussion. The topic is toxic and there is no good will in the discussion.
-Renegade (October 04, 2015, 03:06 AM)
--- End quote ---
I have to just disagree slightly with the wording. They are not "religious" topics because religion at its best saves lives, and religion at its worst is a "different brand of extremism". Sure they're toxic topics, but not religious ones. You don't "believe in climate change after death" or such.
I'd rather call them in a secular manner in your choice of variants of economic styles, where people are just saying stuff with an agenda.
Renegade:
I have to just disagree slightly with the wording. They are not "religious" topics because religion at its best saves lives, and religion at its worst is a "different brand of extremism". Sure they're toxic topics, but not religious ones. You don't "believe in climate change after death" or such.
I'd rather call them in a secular manner in your choice of variants of economic styles, where people are just saying stuff with an agenda.
-TaoPhoenix (October 04, 2015, 06:45 PM)
--- End quote ---
Sure, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Maybe I'm simply using "religious" as a pejorative to mean "lacking solid reasoning/evidence". Either way, take it as metaphor or literal or simply as hyperbole.
But, back to VW on a sober note... ;)
VW's sin there is in selling a product that they have misrepresented. That misrepresentation though is under duress (threats of punishment under law). Had there been no law/regulation, I find it rather unlikely that they'd have done what they did. As it is, they lied to their customers, which is where I find the real problem, though their having done it under duress is a mitigating factor...
I think I'll just sit quietly here on the sidelines and let others throw the first stones. :P 8)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version