Hacker News Reader

Comment by sammalloy | Hacker News Reader

I think it would be easier to emphasize and teach philosophy and ethics of computer science. The problem is, they can't even do this for business students, so focusing on the existential risk of AI alone is a drop of rain in the ocean. If you follow the topic, of let's say, sustainability, then you know this is a huge blind spot in economics and business. Look at only palm oil production as an example. The current threat to the environment of Indonesia has been recognized for decades, yet the world refuses to legislate against the multinational companies who are destroying the forests for palm oil. Again, this is only a small part of the problem, and it's deeply connected to many other problems, such as the profitable harvesting of Indonesian wood from this destruction, which recently showed up in Japan as a source for the Olympic Games infrastructure.

View on HN

Because ethics in engineering is mostly about codified rule compliance rather than the deep navel gazing taken by actual philosophy students. The latter also rarely yields useful answers. Crack open one of the "professional" engineering ethics guide books and 90% of it is thou shalt not build a bad bridge/engine/circuit because it is very bad and you should report your boss to the authorities if they do. I never understood the moral uppity and delusion those engineers have. If a bridge falls it is bad, unless if it is explicitly designed to kill enemy soldiers, then it is good. You can extend this to drones and enemy schoolbuses and the entire defence industry if you want. The so-called "engineering ethics" field should rebrand and follow the financial industry. You follow guidelines because the compliance department demands it to cover the company's derriere. If you don't, your company will get fined. Skip the self-righteous morality because its only purpose is to reduce the principle agent problem for the managerial and asset owning class.

I understand your POV, but in practice, there is far more nuance to the "self-righteous morality" you describe. Take the discussion about the ethics of gene editing, for example, specifically, the editing of the human germline.

> The so-called "engineering ethics" field should rebrand and follow the financial industry

Wait, what? More like the finance industry’s ethics is a desirable direction?

> the world refuses to legislate against the multinational companies who are destroying the forests for palm oil.

Shouldn't it be Indonesia passing (and enforcing) legislation about what happens in its forests?

We already have fair trade, sustainable supply chains for palm oil. Legislation seeks to regulate the trade and force companies to use that supply chain instead of destroying non-renewable habitats and species. If we waited for any country to pass and enforce legislation to control its natural resources which are being exploited to the point of depletion, it would be far too late to do anything, anywhere.

It's easy to teach ethics as an academic subject. It's a lot harder to teach people to be ethical in their life.

Good point. Something I've been thinking about: would we find people are more ethical in societies where the quality of life is higher, basic needs are met, and inequality is lessened? My guess is yes. From what I recall, the corruption index closely follows the opposite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com