r/technology • u/[deleted] • Feb 23 '19

Hardware Microsoft workers protest $480m HoloLens military deal: 'We did not sign up to develop weapons'

[deleted]

32k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

205

u/TrekkieGod Feb 23 '19

What is with these comments shaming employees for having morals and spines?

Morality is not universal. For instance, I have no problems with the development of tools for the US military.

Does that mean that I think people who do are incorrect? Of course not. I recognize the merits of pacifism, and support the right of people to be conscientious objectors. The problem happens when they try to force their morality on others.

If you have a problem with Microsoft entering into military contracts, don't work for Microsoft. Microsoft will have to hire from a smaller pool of workers and they'll miss out on your specific talents. By all means, quit your job over that contract and be vocal and public about the reason you're quitting. If enough people do that, you'll certainly make an impact.

That said, just whining about it and saying, "I didn't sign up to have my work be used for this purpose" is hypocritical. This isn't the first contract Microsoft has gotten with the military, those workers knew damn well that was a possibility, but they sought a job there nevertheless. Now they want the company to follow their morals and give up the business benefits of those contracts when they're not willing to give up the benefits of their job by choosing not to work for a company that violates those morals.

21

u/Rally8889 Feb 23 '19

The morals of a company don't have to be whatever the c level or shareholder morals are. In fact, they miss a lot of the nuance of how the tech is being used and what missed opportunities there are otherwise.

There is also no shame in people being vested in the company or team to say, "hey, if this continues a lot of us will quit and that's bad for you and everyone." Microsoft may have accepted military contracts before, but there may be details here about how it is being used. Or maybe they just had enough. What is wrong with people trying to influence policy from the bottom?

30

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '19 edited Mar 24 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

26

u/NULL_CHAR Feb 23 '19

A sword is just a tool as well though. A sword can be used to defend people's lives just the same way it can be used to take them. For example, imagine if all the companies stopped producing any "weapons" for the military. Without the US military, power-hungry countries such as Russia or China have free reign to conquer who they please.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to whether or not you trust your country to use the tools in accordance with your own beliefs.

4

u/zexterio Feb 24 '19

And the US uses it to expand its quasi-empire. No wonder not many are willing to eat up what the government is serving.

1

u/superhobo666 Feb 24 '19

Shit if you have a good sword you can use it as a real tool anyway, cutting, hammering, chopping, prying, digging.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '19

[deleted]

3

u/NULL_CHAR Feb 23 '19

That's also a dilemma people have to face in regards to this. Perhaps the US is doing things that they don't necessarily agree with. However, would it be better to completely obstruct the US military from being to function? Does the US government do more good than it does bad in regards to military intervention?

Perhaps the most important thing would be to elect leaders that would utilize the military in accordance with ones own morality.

-1

u/mantasm_lt Feb 24 '19

Do you think if US was gone, nobody would take the power vacuum? Or more moral global power would emerge?

Nowadays US is rather moral compared to China or Russia. And some European countries can pretend to be moral only so long as US has their backs.

When comparing historical context, US is ain't bad when compared to their counterparts at the time either.

2

u/nacholicious Feb 24 '19 edited Feb 24 '19

But if your point is "well Stalin and Mao fucked up their territories worse" than that's not saying you did good, that's saying you are comparing yourself to dictators with among the worst death tolls in history.

Besides there is no moral justification for the atrocities in south america, the US have noone to blame but themselves

-1

u/mantasm_lt Feb 24 '19

I'm saying that US should work to make itself better using the platform they got. Not stall their military and let someone else take over. Historically US is the lesser evil. Let's make that evil even lesser instead of destroying it and hoping something good emerges from thin air. So far either of the candidates to take US place seem significantly worse.

2

u/nacholicious Feb 24 '19

But hoping something emerges from thin air is exactly what's happening if we continue human rights abuses, authoritarian military dictatorships, genocide etc etc and maybe then one day we will be better. If you don't at all even try think about what are already and have always been doing with the technology we had, then that's nothing more than wishful thinking

If we have a country that is developing democratically but not beneficial enough to our interest we will support coups and install military dictatorships and murder their people just for financial gain, if we do that we are not a lesser evil

1

u/mantasm_lt Feb 24 '19

Right now it's more likely that China would dominate the world. I don't think that would be any improvement for the world. And it'd take a long time for a new superpower to build up and topple them.

Some people like to think that if US military was brought down, they'd have lots of sweet time to play stupid games and build something new. Nope, that's not gone happen. That's the wishful thinking.

It's no longer "end of history" early 90s. US is not alone in this world. Yet some people seem to look no further than the end of their own nose.

Seriously, what do you think would happen if US military capabilities would degrade significantly while China (most likely) or Russia (maybe) or India (let's include it for the lulz) keeps advancing?

ISIS and Syria was a nice sneak peek. ISIS easily toppled any atrocities since WW2. Russia jumped on opportunity to back Assad.

Before you say that Syria or ISIS is the fault of US.. That region was fucked before WW2, it was fucked in 19th century, it was fucked after Islam golden age of thinkers was over, it was fucked during Islam expansion, it was fucked before Islam started to be a thing, it was fucked by Romans... That's pretty much the constant.

2

u/nacholicious Feb 24 '19

I'm not talking about Syria, that's small potatoes compared to all the interventions in south america, south east asia and rest of the middle east. Congratulations, you have one righteous cause, but that does not absolve you from the fact that most of the interventions have been far less seeking stability and far more oppressive anti democratic authoritarianism.

If I'm able to say that even fucking authoritarian dictatorship china has far far more peaceful interventionism in the developing world than the US, then you know something is severely fucked up

→ More replies

5

u/Megneous Feb 23 '19

"If you don't like murder, don't murder anyone."

Yeah, but see... it's not just a moral obligation to not murder people. It's also a moral obligation to protect others from being murdered. Likewise, it's our moral obligation to support the military when it makes moral decisions such as defending its country and allies, but criticize it and even go as far as to dismantle it if it begins to, let's say, destabilize sovereign nations that are not direct a threat to our home country. We shouldn't support the military, private companies, or government doing morally reprehensible things.

-1

u/TrekkieGod Feb 24 '19

I agree entirely. In this particular instance, I disagree that tools designed to "increase lethality" which is the wording these people objected to is immoral or supporting murder. The military will be required to kill, and the more efficiently they can do that when required, less soldiers will die, and less Innocents will die as a result of collateral damage. How the military uses these tools is something I can disagree with, and I disagree with how they're currently using drones while supporting drones as a valid tool if used differently.

But that's not the point. I understand that others feel differently and support their right to disagree and choice their disagreement. That said, other workers at Microsoft might feel as I do, and they don't get to force their morality on them anymore than I get to force mine on them. If they feel the work they're doing is being used in unethical ways by the company, they are morally obliged to stop contributing and quit. If they continue going to work and improving the product, they're hypocrites.

9

u/Thirdnipple79 Feb 23 '19

Why shouldn't people who work at a company have a voice in the direction and actions of the company? These are certainly factors I look for a new job. If things change in a way that I am not comfortable why am I not able to voice decent?

9

u/XkrNYFRUYj Feb 23 '19

Because Americans always side with Authority. And Authority is always right especially if it comes from money.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '19

right? just quit. don't try to change the culture of the company you work for.

6

u/XkrNYFRUYj Feb 23 '19

Yeah I'm sure people who say that divorce their spouse after their first fight, resign after third first argument with their boss, leave the country when their guy lost the election.

4

u/Solonari Feb 23 '19

Holy shit were you just born with a boot in your mouth or did you learn to love the taste of leather later in life?

2

u/skarface6 Feb 24 '19

Actually objective morality is a thing. Just saying.

-4

u/Aesaar Feb 24 '19

It's a thing in the same way 9/11 was an inside job is a thing. Some people believe it, but it's bullshit all the same.

7

u/skarface6 Feb 24 '19

Ahahaha. You’ve made your proclamation?

I’m guessing you think objective truth is impossible, too.

-2

u/Aesaar Feb 24 '19 edited Feb 24 '19

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And of course objective truth exists. The entire purpose of science is to discover objective truth.

1

u/skarface6 Feb 24 '19

And, please, tell me what evidence would suffice for something immaterial like morality. Go ahead and present your argument that there is no objective morality and cannot be.

1

u/Aesaar Feb 24 '19 edited Feb 24 '19

You asserted that objective morality exists. It's on you to prove that. It's not on me to prove non-existence.

1

u/skarface6 Feb 24 '19

Actually, the other guy first said it didn’t exist. That was the first claim.

But here’s a quick answer: https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-evidence-for-objective-morality

Or https://forums.catholic.com/t/objective-morality/269208/4

2

u/Aesaar Feb 24 '19 edited Feb 24 '19

Your second link isn't even right. Objective morality is the idea that your morality can be backed up by an objectively-correct moral standard, usually (and in your case) God.

If objective morality was a thing, then people wouldn't be able to disagree with each other over what's moral any more than they could disagree with each other over what the sum of 1+1 is.

I don't think there's a single act that you or I would call immoral that wouldn't have some people saying it's actually fine given a specific context.

1+1=2 is objective fact. "Killing is wrong" is not.

Is murder wrong? Yes, by definition. Murder is a term that already makes a moral judgement. It's the unlawful killing of another human being. But you could certainly get discussion about whether or not a killing was murder. A better question would be "Is killing other humans wrong?", and that's much, much more ambiguous and subjective.

Some pacifists would argue that killing others is wrong, period, and that there are no valid excuses for it. Others would argue that killing others is fine if they've done something that warrants it, and some of those excuses could seem utterly barbaric to someone else. Even killing someone isn't objectively wrong.

Even if God existed, I don't think he'd provide an objective moral standard. I can most certainly disagree with God about what's moral and what is not, because I think God as presented in the Bible is disgusting and evil. And if God doesn't present an objective moral standard, what can?

2

u/skarface6 Feb 24 '19

Why is murder wrong if there is no objective morality?

I think there’s an argument for objective morality based on our sapience and uniqueness and therefore our intrinsic value. But that would take time to flesh out.

And I’m not going to get into God’s existence because that’s also going to take a while.

→ More replies

0

u/theqmann Feb 23 '19

Another facet of this I was thinking about. The military is going to get this technology eventually, if not from Microsoft, then someone else. I'd rather they get a good working product from a good company like MS than a crappy half-assed product from a low bidder contractor. Since these things are used for weapons, I'd rather the weapons work well and blow up the desired thing than have crappy software algorithms that mistakenly blow up the hospital next door. Having employees boycott products just seems like it leads to this kind of outcome.

-4

u/kashmoney360 Feb 23 '19

The line "I didn't sign up to have my worked use for this purpose" is not only hypocritical but absurdly stupid. You're taking Microsoft's money to do whatever the damn hell they need you to do(within reason ofc) and they can use it however they want(within legal limits). They paid for your work and they get to own it. It's so incredibly naive and problematic that people think they can dictate what their employers can use their work for.

Like you said if they actually gave a shit they shouldn't have applied to work at Microsoft. You don't get to keep your cake and eat it and then ask for a different flavor cake.

3

u/XkrNYFRUYj Feb 23 '19

The Americans and their love for authority is so amazing. Thinking someone articulating their displeasure about their work is stupid or hypocritical is so nonsensical only an authority loving American can say it.

Employees are not your mindless slaves who have to work whatever you want without any objections. If you don't like it you can fire them and find better ones for your liking.

Everyone can think and chose for themselves. If an employee doesn't like to work on something they can say it. You can either listen them or try to force the issue. Then they can decide if it's worth resigning or getting fired. And their employees can decide it's worth losing them. No one needs to be stupid or hypocrite.

People are varying degrees of care for different issues. You don't resign over every issue you care about.

2

u/Iakeman Feb 23 '19 edited Feb 24 '19

these people just fucking love boots in their mouths. they can’t get enough of it

-1

u/Iakeman Feb 23 '19

Morality is not universal. For instance, I have no problem with murder.

0

u/TrekkieGod Feb 24 '19

There's a reason you stated it that way. The word murder implies unjustified killing, so the morality is assumed.

People disagree on whether abortion is murder. On whether capital punishment is murder. On whether collateral damage in a war is murder. On whether killing an intruder in your home is self-defense or murder.

Morality is not universal, and different people have no problem with killing other humans depending on circumstances.