Yeah, the OP confused the terms unethical and immoral. For lawyers the former has only a vague resemblance to the latter.
I agree. Initially I read into the description some magical ability to get people off, but it doesn’t say that. Defense lawyers are noble.
Well, I selected “cook”, in part on the assumption that a person who just had a full, satisfying meal might be marginally less inclined to commit unspeakable acts of torture for the next few hours than otherwise. Thinking about it a bit more, however, maybe lawyer, because that one seems to involve me in the lowest total loss of life. Unless, maybe, the murderers I manage to get off all have tallies like that Norwegian guy, or something.
Doesn’t really matter, though. I’m being coerced into acts I would likely not accept doing voluntarily, and with the power to resist taken away from me. On that basis I cannot consider myself morally responsible. Not that I wouldn’t feel real bad about it, of course.
You could just as easily turn that around: There’s nothing inherently unethical about making tasty food, but there is something inherently wrong with supplying terrorists with weapons. Either way, it’s not you doing the harm; that’s all up to the free will of others.
But I personally think that feeding people doesn’t attach nearly as much responsibility as arming them. If those death camp guards all decided to give up their immoral trade, they’d still need to eat, but if the terrorists decided to give up theirs, they would not need weapons. The weaponsmith is helping evil people to be evil; the chef is just helping them to be.
:rolleyes:
No, no. Where did the OP say anything about supplying terrorists? He simply said you would work for a company that tasked you to design a new, more deadly weapon. THAT is all you know. You are entering into your job as a weaponsdesigner with the understanding that your weapon will be used for non-criminal purposes. The OP says nothing contradictory about this. There is nothing unethical here.
The cook knows exactly who he/she is feeding and what it is that they need sustenance for.
Probably gunsmith.
The other side of “terrorist” is “freedom fighter”, and better weapons to more people might eventually mean a more equitable distribution of power around the world. More peace can only happen by disarming everybody or arming everybody, and the former sure isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
Sure, it’s going to trigger an arms race between factions, but individual weapons are at least a more populist approach than, say, nukes, bombs, trade policy, and other tools that give the few in charge disproportionate power over everyone else.
This way, sure, millions will die, but millions will die anyway, and 30 million armed with a better weapon is 30 million that could (slightly) better resist their oppressors. International diplomacy seems to be a function of “one bullet, one vote” anyway, and this just gives other parties a… fighting chance. Arm everyone well enough, and maybe you’ll even have a deterrent effect going. It’s the whole “guns don’t kill people, people do” line of thought, I suppose.
Maybe kids will die. But maybe their country/faction/ideology will survive the next oil/water/land/precious metal war.
IOW, it’s the only choice that has the potential for good.
But suppose you didn’t actually work in the camp itself. Suppose the camp guards all order out and you work in the town pizzeria. They call you up every day and order a pizza. Is it unethical for you to sell them a pizza?
Suppose the camp guards all bring their lunches in from home. But they like to stop for a pizza after work. Is it unethical for you to serve them pizza when they’re off duty? Suppose one of the guards comes in during the weekend with the little league team he coaches. Do you refuse to sell them a pizza?
Take it another step back. Suppose you work in a place that makes sandwiches and then sends them out to local sandwich shops. And you know one of the local sandwich shops sells sandwiches to the camp guards. So some of the sandwiches you make are probably being sold to camp guards. Is it unethical for you to keep making sandwiches? Suppose the sandwich place you work at is like an assembly line and your job is to spread some mustard on the sandwiches as they pass by you. That’s all you do all day. Do you feel that you spreading mustard on slices of bread is causing thousands of people to die in a deathcamp?
I’m training to be an accountant, so I know the technical meaning of ethical, but in common usage, it is used to describe acts that violate an individuals moral code.
I said lawyer. IANAL. An attorney’s job is to advocate for the client. It is not unethical to ensure that your client gets the best possible treatment under the law, as long as you are not lying and do not knowingly allow your client to lie under oath. It might be a little smarmy, but I believe that any lawyer will tell you it is not unethical.
All the other ones contribute directly or indirectly to causing death.
Tobacco lobbist. These days I figure if you pick up a cigarette for the first time, you deserve what you get. You knew what it did.
I, of course, don’t speak of people who are already addicted - a different kettle of fish.
Tobacco lobbyist. Most people who are harmed by smoking are the smokers themselves. It’s their choice.
Weapons designer, no problem. Sell them to the US government, make a lot of money, save the US some money and get the military a better weapon.
Do I have to quit after a year?
Regards,
Shodan
I am not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination, but the idea of creating a weapon with the express purpose of being “more horrifically disabling” is unethical. I think a weapon should be designed to serve its purpose, which would be to disable the enemy toward a goal of winning the battle, but doing so horrifically is unnecessary, inhumane, and sadistic.
This is a matter of enabling. It may not directly lead to any hard to people, but by feeding and maintaining the morale of those commiting those atrocities, it makes one at least partially culpable for their actions. I suppose it is possible that, in so doing, one may be able to have some influence and lessen their harm, perhaps by being the highlight of their day they don’t feel as inclined to abuse the prisoners, but there’s no way to really know, so that taint of enabling is going to override that possibility.
Legally speaking, there is nothing unethical about providing a defense for someone within the law. However, getting someone off for a crime by getting some important evidence or testimony thrown out on some silly technicality, still has some moral implications. While I do believe that even the guilty deserve a competent legal defense, I think that there is a measure of an ethical dilemma by not obeying one’s moral imperatives. Still, this is a relatively minor objection relative to the above two, and it would have been my vote if not for…
This isn’t unethical at all. Just like legal defenses, I don’t think there’s an ethical issue with providing fair representation. And while one could make arguments about the dangers of the product, unlike the above situation, there is no force or coercion involved, the risks are common knowledge, and the damage is done primarily to oneself. So I may personally be disgusted by the product and dislike that people use it, but no one is being forced into doing anything, so I have trouble finding any ethical issues.
This sort of falls under both the gun and smoking deals. To the extent of the smoking one, it is a voluntary one, but unlike that one, the risks are being modified in a way that the user may or may not be aware of. And like with the guns, it’s negative aspect is being increased in a way that doesn’t seem to have any affect on its “positive” effects. It may not be so bad if normal heroine were available and then this super heroine that provides a better high but is more dangerous is also available, but simply making it more addictive, is just flat very unethical.
So, yeah, I voted for tobacco lobbyist.
I’d have picked the gun designer if it weren’t for the fact that it’s supposed to be more child friendly. There’s only one real reason for that feature on an assault rifle and I’m not going to lie to myself about what it is.
Head chef, no. The cook is as much a part of the camp as the guards. Without people like cooks and clerks and truck drivers and carpenters the camp can’t run. Whatever your part in it you’re aiding the slaughter.
Legal defense whiz, meh. Legally it’s ethical, but there’s a distinction between legally ethical and actual justice. Still, if it wasn’t guaranteed that all of my clients would be guilty I would choose this.
Tobacco lobbyist, not terrible. Everybody already knows the health risks of smoking, it’s not like the old days where they could lie and pretend like cigarettes have health benefits. If people want to smoke they should be able to.
Heroin cooker, I picked this one. You’re making a harmful, more addictive product, yes, but so is the tobacco lobbyist and I figure the heroin is going to kill less people overall.
“Silly technicality”? Like the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment? Laymen just really don’t get it. They bitch and whine about lawyers until it’s their ass on the line. Then they want Perry fucking Mason on the case, expect miracles, AND want the lawyer to work for free.
That’s not what the OP presented as a choice. He asked us to choose to be a head chef specifically for the death camp. There is no escaping culpability there.
I picked the Lawyer. It’s only 24 people, it doesn’t involve me being taken to a place where there are death camps, it’s not really an unethical job in of itself, and I’ve always wanted to learn more about law.
I picked the lawyer, because, while they’re all guilty, like you specified, it may be that sometimes evidence was illegally obtained, or someone committed perjury to nail the guy. In fact, many ‘loopholes’ are necessary evils that I’d rather have and support than not. In that case, while it’s helping get a murderer off, perhaps it’s making the overall justice system better.
That’s the part people don’t think about. If the state doesn’t have to prove their case with factual, legally obtained evidence, there isn’t much point to providing a defense. And as Oak said, people think everybody actually is guilty, until it happens to them.