Hacker News Reader

Comment by nec4b | Hacker News Reader

Right, why do we need due process and laws, when we have people like you who know everything by reading a simple article on the web?

View on HN

Let's say I am staunchly anti-abortion. I believe any abortion is, unambiguously, murder - the killing of a human being, and, maybe even worse, a child. It's unforgivable- goes against everything I believe in.

I also have a friend named Sammy, who's a doctor. Last night I discovered Sammy got a new job at Planned Parenthood, where a significant part of her time will be spent performing surgical abortions.

How many articles on the web should I read before I'm allowed to stop being friends with Sammy?

Maybe the right thing to do is to change your opinions on anti-abortion, and come to understand Sammy better?

In that example yes, but are you really telling me that I should change my views on whether it's okay for governments to hack journalists and activists to publicly smear them and arrest their sources?

Nope, but you should judge individuals on their individual actions

How is choosing to work for a company that sells surveillance software to despotic governments not an "individual action"?

It's an interesting position but one with unpleasant implications. Do you think it is morally wrong to work for, say, a terrorist organization planning a chemical weapons attack if all you do is manage procurement for them — you don't make chemical weapons or use them, you just make phone calls and manage a few spreadsheets.

Also, do you have the same feeling for the reverse situation? If instead of being an employee, you're the boss. You're aware that your employees are doing something morally wrong and you do nothing to stop them, but you aren't doing it yourself. Do you have any responsibility? In the ethics of war, there is the concept of command responsibility[0], where leaders are responsible for the actions of people under their command. Do you think that is a bad doctrine because the leaders aren't the ones shooting people? No one dies through their individual actions even if their subordinates commit war crimes.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility

But choosing to work for a company who helps authoritan governments to prosecute journalists and dissidents is an action, and I will judge you for it.

Regardless of how one feels about abortion, or whatever the issue at hand is, "just change your morals so that whatever your friends do is ok" is not a solution at scale.

Or maybe the right thing to do is to try to help Sammy see the evil she is committing. That could involve a Socratic approach that will help uncover the underpinnings of her position. If that fails and Sammy either obstinately refuses to see or for some reason cannot see, then it makes sense to part ways. You gave it a shot, you tried being charitable, but you ultimately cannot force another to accept the truth, nor should you want to. Everyone is morally responsible for his or her own views at the end of the day.

If you found out about Sammy's new job from a blog post on the internet, maybe you should give him the benefit of the doubt and ask him about it in person before ending your friendship.

Erm, he made an abstract argument in a satirical way, to counter the abstract argument from parent. I don't see judgment to the concrete case.

I really don't want due process and laws to decide who my friends are for me.

I don't want a mob deciding who should be harassed because of an article.

Ostracizing someone is not harrasment. It's the opposite.

I find your argument to be quite disingenuous considering that the intention of the ostracism it to harm by denying job opportunities and by exclusion from social relations.

Have some decency to call your actions what they are.

If you want to harm somebody in retaliation for doing something you don't approve of, don't call it 'the opposite of harassment'.

I can see your point but perhaps it's a difference of viewpoint. When I am ostracising someone, it's because something bad they did. I think I have the right to choose with who I associate, and nobody has the right to force themselves upon me.

I don't understand why you are redefining a call for ostracism as "deciding who your friends are" and then classify ostracism as "the opposite of harassment".

This pretty much looks like harassment to me:

"the developer community need to start ostracising people working for these companies. Don't hire former employees, don't hang hang out with people who work for these companies and conferences. Don't supply services to these companies (build their website, network...)."

I don't understand what you don't understand. I can't harass someone I don't interact with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com