So, should universities abandon their no-weapons-research policies?
Not to be flippant about it, but where exactly do you think the Internet came from?
This question was settled in the 2000 election, Gore invented it!
Sidbuckeye, I don’t get what that has to do with my question. (Note that a ban on weapons research isn’t the same as a ban on all military-funded research.)
The OP asked for a debate on whether there was a rational reason for universities to refuse research funds from military sponsors.
I offered a suggestion: that it might be defended as an extension of existing no-weapons-research policies.
So, for starters, is it rationally defensible for universities to have no-weapons-research policies in the first place? What do y’all think?
Oh. Now that I notice it, I think it might be that Sidbuckeye was trying to respond to catsix and accidentally quoted me instead. Never mind; carry on.
IMHO yes. If anything it is this policy that is unethical.
The universities can research whatever they want. It’s just not unethical if one chooses research with military applications and I believe it is immature to suggest otherwise.
Instead of an ethics committee the students should have just filled the bad guy’s house with popcorn.
Why?
Does that mean it’s “immature” for universities to forbid weapons system research? Should they change those policies, as kanicbird says?
I’ve done military-sponsored research for a university-affiliated lab myself, so I understand the arguments in favor of it. I just don’t think we’ve done a very good job yet in this debate of rationally supporting them.
“Naw, military research is ethically fine, the students who oppose it are just a bunch of babies” may be a perfectly fine opinion, but if we want to debate about it, we have to defend it with arguments.
It’s immature of them to assume this makes them morally or ethically superior to other universities that have no such policy.
In my personal experience, the students most likely to get involved in university politics or write for student newspapers are more passionate than logical. I hope the faculty will take this into account and act for the best long-term interests of the university and the nation that hosts it.
I don’t agree that that always holds. I’ve heard that wounding enemy soldiers is often more effective than killing them outright, simply because of the drain on resources that caring for a wounded soldier requires.
There is certainly military research (chemical and biological weapons come to mind) that can lead to greater suffering or more deaths.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that military reasearch is unethical on it’s face. But there are certainly avenues of research that are unethical on those grounds.
Why? Is it “immature” to believe that the academic mission should concentrate on discoveries that enrich or benefit human lives, rather than figuring out more effective ways to inflict suffering and death?
AFAICT, these policies seem to be ultimately based on a resource-allocation argument. I.e., universities and researchers have only limited resources, and our fundamental academic mission is to find new knowledge and use it in beneficial ways, so we should focus our limited resources on that. Therefore, it would be unethical to divert resources and efforts instead into studying how to cause more harm.
I can see how someone could disagree with that reasoning, but I don’t see what’s “immature” about it.
You are assuming it is one or the other. Work with a military purpose can also have academic and non-military value as well. Military nuclear research has provided tons of theoretical progress. It also gave us clean power plants, motors for ships and satellites, as well as ending a horrific war.
The OP said the work was in AI. That has been a rather disappointing area of academic research over the past few decades. If a military project can pull the right resources together and fund them, they might make significant academic progress as well and that is presumably where the professors real motives lie.
Immature? No. Illogical? Yes.
The military IS a weapons system. The rest is details. Or ask yourself this: What is the substantive difference between working on, say, a new type of armor that allows a soldier to withstand more damage, and therefore be able to stay in a fight and kill more enemies, than working on a gun that does the same thing?
Is working on ‘SDI’ unethical? If so, how about working on a distributed, fault-tolerant network that is designed to allow the military to communicate during a nuclear attack so that it can retaliate? Both are techniques for ensuring the survivability of a second-strike capability.
Here’s another argument for you: If you support the concept of a military in general, and understand that you need one to protect your country, and that the military needs weapons to be able to do its job, then how can working on weapons systems be unethical while working on other military systems isn’t? It makes no sense.
The job of the military is to kill people and break things. If you support any military research at all, you are enabling them to do so. Whether you work on a specific weapon or a logistical system that allows them to use their current weapons more effectively makes no moral difference whatsoever.
I’ve done military-sponsored research for a university-affiliated lab myself, so I understand the arguments in favor of it. I just don’t think we’ve done a very good job yet in this debate of rationally supporting them.
“Naw, military research is ethically fine, the students who oppose it are just a bunch of babies” may be a perfectly fine opinion, but if we want to debate about it, we have to defend it with arguments.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not what I said. What I said was:
It’s the sanctimony I object to, coupled as it is by the ignorance of history that leads one to believe that one would even be able to go to a university and engage in a free exchange of ideas unless the nation hosting that university had the means to defend itself against other nations with less liberal ideas. The form of that defense routinely involves knowing how to put many little holes into the soldiers of other nations.
The limited resources argument is, heh, limited. By that logic, universities should scrap all sports and arts programs, if they’re not “beneficial” enough. I don’t agree that resources are that tight. Besides, the grant money from military research can help fund other fields of study, including some you might find more palatable.
I don’t believe the students raising the objections at the OP’s university have thought this through, nor have you. I can understand the attitude of the students, seeing as they’re young and impassioned. As for you, I don’t know you well enough to speculate.
I believe you are correct. I was naive when I went to college and expected to find people who all understood their positions deeply and that I could engage in debate and learn from. There was a lot of that.
However, I was shocked to find the type of people described here more common than I would have believed.
All thought processed get hijacked by a simplistic idea that is based in little deep thought or understanding at all. Military = Bad is the only neuronal output that they seem be able to work generate. I suspect it is roughly the same phenomena as happens with religious fundamentalists all over the world but in a different setting. Little do they know.
That is a pity because there are some philosophies and deep understanding of facts that could potentially generate a similar idea. You won’t find it here though.
Sure, but power plants and motors don’t have to be developed in the context of the military. I think the anti-military-research argument there would be along the lines of: If we move more of our basic and applied research out of the military context, then we get beneficial new discoveries with less collateral damage in terms of death and destruction.
It might be argued that our current system of research support puts the cart before the horse. That is, we’re using lavish military research funding to drive essential research and development in non-military applications. Whereas perhaps we ought to be putting more of the resources into non-military development with broader applications, and let the military pick and choose the ideas it can make use of in its own labs, just as other sectors do.
Well, that sounds like a validation of the rationale of the more “absolutist” position described in the OP. I.e., since military advantage is “fungible” between weapons and non-weapons systems, then any military-funded research is equivalent to working on weapons systems. So if we prohibit the one then we’re logically required to prohibit the other.
Sorry, but I don’t get it. What “sanctimony”? What universities are proclaiming the “assumption of moral or ethical superiority to other universities” that you object to? You say it isn’t the mere fact of their having such a no-weapons-research policy that bugs you, so what is it that they’re actually doing that you find sanctimonious?
Remember, though, opposing military-funded research in universities doesn’t mean opposing all military research. As I noted above, the military has its own R&D labs, and would continue to develop new systems in them even if all universities stopped accepting military research funding.
But the problem is that the weapons research, according to what the policy statements seem to be saying, isn’t just a distraction from their fundamental mission, but actually conflicts with it. Sure, you always have to divert some resources into frills and nonessentials (although I’m a little startled to think of an “arts program” being lumped into that category! Aren’t the arts a fairly important part of intellectual enrichment?), but it’s another thing to divert resources to actually work against your core mission.
Well, if they don’t want to violate the arbitrary rules they’ve created for themselves, so be it.
If the “core mission” is to benefit mankind, I don’t see that slippery a slope to someone deciding that modernist nudes are exploitative of women and a bourgeois symptom of colonialist European dead-white-male thinking.
I’m glad in a way that students have passion. I just keep an eye on them because of the harm they can do without realizing it.