Comment by aylmao | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aylmao | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> First, the purpose of a military is to be able to break things and harm people as effectively as possible. Did he think his job would involve making the military less effective?

That's his point. He was distracted by the pay, the work, etc. and put thinking about what his software would do to the side. Of course it's obvious, but it's easy to "get distracted" and not think about it.

> Second, why is it bad to work on software that's used to kill people? Killing isn't necessarily bad. If this software helped kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or Ayman al-Zawahiri, it would have a hugely positive impact upon the world.

This is inaccurate for two reasons:

1. It assumes moral absolutism: that certain killing is bad and certain is good, but good or bad for whom? The CIA tried to kill Castro multiple times, but he's a hero to the people of Cuba. I'm sure people in the USA would've applauded this, but Latin America would've mourned and been furious.

2. Is the US government the best judge to decide who lives and who dies? Moreover, is the single individual in the military who will ultimately call the order to kill the person who should decide who is good to die and who isn't? And on that note, where does that ethically place the enabling of certain people to wield such power?

> It assumes moral absolutism: that certain killing is bad and certain is good, but good or bad for whom? The CIA tried to kill Castro multiple times, but he's a hero to the people of Cuba. I'm sure people in the USA would've applauded this, but Latin America would've mourned and been furious.

Considering the horrific things Castro did to the Cuban people[1] and how he almost started nuclear armageddon[2], the world would have been better off if he had been overthrown (and possibly killed) as early as possible.

> Is the US government the best judge to decide who lives and who dies?

No, and nobody in this thread is arguing that. The US military is an extremely flawed organization, and any military is a blunt tool. Even when the US goes into a country with the best intentions (a rare occurrence), lots of innocent people will be killed. It's good that we continually raise the standards we hold our military to. It wasn't that long ago that people were fine with carpet bombing population centers. Now we recognize that such acts are abhorrent. The same is not true for other governments and leaders. So to answer your question: I don't think the US government is the best judge, but it's a lot better than the alternatives (such as the PRC or Russia). It's also a better judge than the people it tries to kill, such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/opinion/how-castro-held-t...

> I don't think the US government is the best judge, but it's a lot better than the alternatives (such as the PRC or Russia). It's also a better judge than the people it tries to kill, such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

And there it is: the blind ideology that drives this madness. Any rational analysis of the last 50 years would show the US is far, far more dangerous than China, Russia and terrorism combined. The US has slaughtered millions of innocent people across the globe in the last twenty years. China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in that time.

The real lesson here of course is that true evil is absolutely convinced of its own righteousness and totally ignorant of real world facts. That evil is something many are all too happy to join.

> Considering the horrific things Castro did to the Cuban people[1] and how he almost started nuclear armageddon[2], the world would have been better off if he had been overthrown (and possibly killed) as early as possible.

Considering the horrific things US presidents have done to the American people [1] and how they invented nuclear armageddon[2], the world would have been better off if they had been overthrown (and possibly killed) as early as possible.

(In fact, if we're going into the territory of human rights-- the US has not a page, but a whole category in Wikipedia [1] on violations).

> I don't think the US government is the best judge, but it's a lot better than the alternatives (such as the PRC or Russia). It's also a better judge than the people it tries to kill, such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

From your point of you, an American, sure. From the point of view of Chileans, I doubt the murder of democratically elected Salvador Allende aided by the CIA was good judgment, or that American judgement was better than his. From the point of view of Guatemalans I doubt the US's involvement in the coup against democratically elected Jacobo Árbenz was good judgement. The list goes on. As someone who is not American I can assure you the US government is not a better judge than the PRC or Russia, is equally as bad and in some cases, from my point of view, worse.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_rights_abuses_i...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

The US may have invented nuclear armageddon, but are you sure it would have been better if someone else had?

I frequently see this argument used to justify everything from ever creeping surveillance of civilians, to sanctions that primarily affect civilians, to the bombing, killing and maiming of civilians.

Surely we should aim for better than "yeah, but they'd be even more terrible than us"?

The US is the only country that has ever used atomic weapons, so yeah, probably.

You literally have no idea what the people of Cuba feel about Castro. Neither do I. There is no freedom of the press in Cuba. And the reason for that is that anybody who says he was anything less than a saint gets thrown into a dungeon-like jail cell at best, or executed at worst.

> You literally have no idea what the people of Cuba feel about Castro. Neither do I.

I don't. I personally haven't been to Cuba, but I'm not American so I know people who have (unlike the US, we could always travel to Cuba) and in fact have worked with people from University of Havana.

From what I hear, it's not a paradise, but its people are also not "tormented by the constant fear of a tyrannical regime" like some people seem to claim. Much like most other nations in the world, I'd say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com