Hacker News Reader

Comment by bem94 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe this isn't entirely surprising given the audience, but it seems like most of the comments and discussions here prefer to deal with topics very much contained within the Starwars universe, rather than looking at the parallels the article raises between the moral choices faced by Galen and those faced by we Engineers today. There's a dozen ways to interpret that I guess. I hope it speaks more to the fandom of Starwars rather than contemporary disregard for the discussion of ethics in engineering.

View on HN

In Star wars there's a very clear sense of good and evil. The bad guys seem to be aware that they are bad guys.

Most engineers, most soldiers, and even most terrorists genuinely believe that they are the good guys. And that makes discussions of ethics a lot more difficult.

And to the best of my knowledge, we don't really have guidelines the way doctors do. Is it okay to write code that tracks users even when your app is closed? Is it okay to build missile guidance systems? Bombs? Ad + tracking networks that tell companies 90% of your browsing habits without your permission?

Indeed! It makes the discussions very difficult and all the more necessary.

It's interesting what you say about guidelines. I actually went looking for anything which might resemble an engineers code of ethics. There are a couple out there [1] but those I found are firmly routed in the abstract, and offer little in terms of practical guidance.

All of your questions are exactly the kinds of discussions engineers need to have, both among themselves and with the engagement of the society we serve and influence.

> Most engineers, most soldiers, and even most terrorists genuinely believe that they are the good guys.

You're right. I think there is also a false dichotomy between "good" and "bad" technologies and their applications as well. It isn't as clear cut as that and we would do well to appreciate the nuance rather than race to ascribe something an approximate and inadequate label.

1. https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-profess...

>The bad guys seem to be aware that they are bad guys.

Not in this film! Their stated intention is to bring peace to the universe by demonstrated capability to wield overwhelming force.

Y'know, US foreign policy.

I believe a good measure is the likelihood of someone else doing it.

If you're forced to shoot someone innocent, you can do it if it's obvious that someone else (a fellow soldier?!) would be doing it instead and you will suffer from the consequences.

Also as a dev, if you design a user tracking feature, it's clear someone else will do it if you don't.

However, for the first atomic bomb there is probably a time window where you might not be replaceable and hence saying 'no' would have had an actual effect.

I know it's morally questionable (mind though it doesnt tell you what you should do, only what's acceptable) but avoids all avoidable stuff and is just honest enough to acknowledge the situations in which you don't have the power to affect outcomes.

The argument of "if I don't do it then someone else will" is a self fulfilling prophecy. You are that someone and it speaks to a weakness of character in anybody who invokes it.

If everyone said no then someone else wouldn't do it. Consider this: you are the last in the line of people - everyone before you has said no which is why they're asking you - except instead of being principled like all the rest you have caved and said yes. Congratulations, you are the "someone else" and the downfall of the entire system.

Your example specifically ignores what I said: I was referring to the "likelihood of someone else doing it".

If I am the last in a line of people, the likelihood of someone else doing it is zero, so the above would suggest refusal as well.

And of course, all these decisions are quite easy to make if you ignore the "being forced to" part.

In most scenarios we see in films or know from history it was: Either you do it or you will suffer dire consequences (some Nazi prison or death for example).

I understand that the above is not romantic and doesn't make for heroic films. But this is about reality, so tell me would you as a soldier refuse to kill someone even if probability was highly likely that someone else would do it? At the threat of death?

If so, you probably just got two people killed instead of one. If not, you cannot really complain about what I wrote above.

Can someone help me understanding the downvotes?

Watching "Rogue One," the real-world historical parallel that came to my head was that Galen Erso was modelled after Werner Heisenberg and Nazi A-bomb programme. I was surprised, Heisenberg was not mentioned in the essay: maybe that would have driven points home?

I was on the fence concerning the essay. I think I understand many of the points made by other respondents: The canonical Star Wars Universe is too black-and-white and inconsistent to use as a backdrop for thinking about engineering ethics.

As a side note regarding the relationship between the Dark Side, the Sith, the Emperor and technology. Actually some of points touched on in the essay (i.e., reliance on technology) are explained in the excellent twenty-five issue Marvel series "Darth Vader."

You're right that the discussion is leaning to the fictional side, but to be fair, the article falls into this trap as well. I don't think it's disregard, I think it's practicality…

The fact is the movie is the only shared-context for discussion that's been offered. Everyone works somewhere different, but everyone (apparently!) has seen the movie, so that't the 'moral arena' being discussed.

If you reply to the comments that you find disconcerting in this way, and try to tease the conversation onto a real world example that you offer, I think you'll see the real discussion start.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com