>>17364431
You are creating a machine that flies and shuts. You are not the one hitting the red button.

If you don't do it, somebody else will.

>>17364431
Do you believe that your country should have the means to defend itself? Do you acknowledge that other countries will continue to develop more advanced weapons, and use them against your country if they get the opportunity? Do you also acknowledge that in the defense of your way of life, other lives may have to be taken, either directly or indirectly?

On a more specific level, do you believe that drone warfare is a step too far, and that no civilized countries should use it?

Once you answer these questions, you'll be closer to a decision.

I currently work as a military contractor, doing software engineering. I see and work on lots of things that could aid my country in war or hurt enemies. But I believe that my work ultimately saves life, if it means having a superior military force as a deterrent to war. And I don't believe my country will just go about using the weapons irresponsibly.

>>17364446

It's not entirely clear that what Western governments are doing qualifies as 'self-defense'.

Maybe it does. In fact, I think it does. But it's not entirely clear. Is 'self-optimization' 'self-defense'? Maybe.

Also, I'm hoping you guys have some kind of security if you're identifying yourself as military contractors publicly.

>>17364443
If i made a machine that automatically targeted every baby in a 50 mile radius and killed them, then put a big red button to activate it and put an explanation of what it did and somebody pressed it would I not be liable? (I know it is a stretch but hyperbole helps me with morality)

>>17364445
so that means it is just for me to do it?

>>17364446
not too sure if it would be considered defense as the united states tends to be on the offense, I can understand your argument on the advancement of weapons to enable your country to stay in a position that it "can" defend itself but I dont think that it is necessary to kill to live well

I dont know what to think about drone warfare, part of the reason for this thread.

I dont know what country you live in, but my country does have a reputation for abusing its power

>>17364449
this guy isnt me btw, but I understand your position

>>17364468
>so that means it is just for me to do it?

Morally neutral. Results matter.

>>17364470
so congress and the president can authorize war/police actions, many of these men and women have their own ulterior motives that may not be just

would handing a loaded gun to an insane person be morally neutral?

would handing Lenny another bunny or field mouse be morally neutral?

>>17364431
okay, first off please take everything that these idiots are saying with a gigantic grain of salt, as i can guarantee you that not a single person on this board has ever read a single book on normative ethics, metaethics, or hell, even just war theory.

you're asking a lot of different questions in your post, so i'd recommend that you narrow down what you're talking about it. check the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (sep) articles on some of the terms i mentioned, and i'd highly recommend asking your question on /r/askphilosophy and searching through past threads on similar topics. it's really fucking complex, and an extremely serious decision to make, so actually take some time and work through the relevant literature instead of getting your answer from a probably /pol/ idiot spewing their typical nationalist bs

>>17364483

You'll never get society to organize against individual interests. In order for your action to be morally just, your action would have to result in a different, more just outcome. Whether or not you build the bombs doesn't matter when someone else can and will build those bombs in your stead. The outcome is the same, so nothing has changed by you burying your head in the sand.

>>17364491
not being directly responsible and morally culpable for the deaths of other people is a pretty good reason to not serve the interests of a neo-imperialist state

>>17364503

You're not morally culpable if your actions resulted in no net change. The only other vector that seems to matter in law is intent, and that's more because law is a social institution than anything else.

>>17364491
>naive consequentialism is like totally obviously true guys

>>17364509
>if I use the word 'naive' my opponent's argument is refuted guys

>>17364513
>>17364509
>>17364508
my thread somewhat got derailed, think I'm gonna go talk with my wife

>>17364513
i'm saying "naive" because you're assuming that consequentialism is true, without giving any considering to other ethical theories. check your priors br0