> Who is really responsible though? The developers who wrote the code?
Yes. The person who wrote the shit is responsible as much as the person who ordered the change.
Yes. The person who wrote the shit is responsible as much as the person who ordered the change.
We are all responsible for our actions and the results our actions cause. "I was just following orders" in no way absolves anyone of that responsibility.
That you may pay a price for doing the right thing doesn't make avoiding doing it acceptable.
If the society you live in won't look out for you in these situations, why should you look out for it? Take care of you and yours first.
I think it's still clear cut. Losing everything is a lamentable disaster, to be sure, but that doesn't change the ethics of the situation.
> If the society you live in won't look out for you in these situations
It's not some faceless "society", it's actual people, including the specific people you know. If you're willing to do things that are harmful to others, you're actively working to make the world worse for everyone -- including yourself and those you love.
But I'm not even really arguing that people who do bad things because they want to avoid harmful repercussions must choose differently. I'm arguing that people who do that are choosing to do something unethical, and we are what we do.
Perhaps the ethical tradeoff makes some practical sense for some -- but it's still an ethical tradeoff.
Even doctors have to work for a living. That makes them a cog too.
Nothing wrong with seeing where you fit, and securing your future with strategic choices to get away from toxic shit. But you're still a cog.
And you can be an engineer and still be a cog.
The other name for a "cog" is a proletariat.
However, many members of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie LARP as proletariat — particularly academics.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/02/middle-class-income-in-major....
I think the parent commenter is using the term in that context, rather than if they work a blue-collar job or if they’re middle class.
Also, academics and engineers don’t derive their income from labor, but from connections, bureaucratic status, and knowledge asymmetry. That’s why they’re part of the bourgeoisie and not proletariat.
Eg, lawyers were never part of the proletariat — yet they also need to work to survive.
I'm an engineer and absolutely derive my income from labor. I don't get paid for just knowing people or knowledge asymmetry, I get paid for producing stuff.
See my example about lawyers:
> Eg, lawyers were never part of the proletariat — yet they also need to work to survive.
Perhaps you could address that.
I’m a bit confused by your examples with academics or engineers as well. If an engineer stops fulfilling their deliverables, they’ll likely stop being employed. Same goes for a postdoc not producing any research. I’ve certainly seen people get fired for failing to get work done even though they have connections in their industry. It almost seems like your conception of who is bourgeoises and who is not is based on how snobby the caricature of their job is.
[1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
> Eg, lawyers were never part of the proletariat — yet they also need to work to survive.
Please do.
Or, if the work from their clients (labour power) is sustaining them, they’d be part of the proletariat, but if they’re able to get by from the labour of others or capital they own (eg: investments, articling) then they wouldn’t be. Does that make sense?
I'm not sure how you can say this. I suppose it may depend on how you define "working class", though. If you mean it in the sense of "middle class", then there are lots of them.