• SwampYankee@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Funny story, the only ethics required in my engineering degree was a 2-day unit on our professional code of ethics. We had a 20-question true/false homework on it, and the thing about a professional code of ethics is it’s not super intuitive. Most of the class thought they could gut feel their way through it, but you actually had to read the code because the wording was very specific sometimes. When it turned out that everyone failed the homework, the professor let us try again.

    Ethics!

  • DrVortex@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are confusing taking a class with actually having ethics. No amount of attending a lecture about ethics will convince you if you do not, as a basic premise agree with the ethical principle that loss of life is a bad thing. And to be very clear, ethical principles are subjective. There is no objectively right or wrong thing as far nature is concerned.

    • girthero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ethics class gives you tools to analyze a problem. Any good class is part of the philosophy department and leans on the classic philosphers approaches to analyze the problem. Many engineers would have no exposure to this otherwise and i think its a good part of any Universities’ engineering curriculum.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Classes don’t solve the problem entirely, but they’re a start and without them in this case a company so large and powerful that it has a space program and foreign policy planks is being guided by nothing but the intuition of someone who grew up spending money earned by child slaves and who thinks that scuttling an army’s mission in-progress is pacifism

    • And to be very clear, ethical principles are subjective. There is no objectively right or wrong thing as far nature is concerned.

      Deonotlogists and other Moral Realists and Universalists are shook

      But yeah, let’s imagine moral ontology was solved, and that moral relativism and nihilism are the only ethical theories around…

      • Classy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That sounds like a fun paradox.

        Is “The only objective moral fact is that there is no objective morality” a truthful statement? Is it rational?

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I once had a chemistry professor who used to work as a senior drug researcher at a major pharmaceutical company. He often joked about how the company treated the monkeys used for testing far better than the PhDs. If a monkey suffered a negative reaction there was a major investigation. I’m incredibly surprised Musk can be killing monkeys left and right and hasn’t been thrown in jail.

      • kier@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is.

        Do it in humans.

        Humans can understand the risks involved. Other animals cannot.

        If we’re going to fuck something up, it better be on our own species.

    • Zetta@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yea stopping animal testing sounds great, but animal testing is the backbone of drug and medical breakthroughs. So at least for now that’s not possible

      • Siv@lemmy.praxis.red
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Recognition that animal testing is actually pretty fucked up would be a good start toward funding research into alternatives, such as biological computer simulations.

        We can simulate complex/chaotic systems, like weather, in nearly real-time, so biosim research is mainly a funding and staffing problem at this point.

        Probably we’ll still need animal testing for the final phase before human trials, but we can at least reduce the need for it to bare minimums.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I only learned about it from the “Well There’s Your Problem” podcast. Can’t believe my school never talked about it. We did hear all about Challenger though as well as a few other disasters where the lesson was “If you cut corners, or take chances, people can DIE”

      • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Still can’t believe it happened the first time.

        “Oh let’s just reuse the code and forget the hardware breakers on the machine it’ll be fine.”

        Like I have no ethics training but they even had a (human operated) control rod in the first chicago pile who trusts a radiation gun to a SOFTWARE toggle?

        • qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It wasn’t collectively known that software was hard to do right at that time. If it always performed as intended it would have made for a less expensive and perfectly safe machine. It’s the textbook case in doing software wrong because there wasn’t one that happened before it.

    • Lt_Cdr_Data@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I absolutely would. I’d not line up to be among the first, but controlling devices via a brain interface is an inevitable step of technological evolution.

      It will provide such an immense performance boost, that many professions may become unattainable without having one. Possibly within our lifetime.

        • Droechai@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it can reroute my neurons to lessen my ADHD and autism traits I would gladly pay with 3/4 of waking hours filled by ads. At least that would give me 1/4 more working brain than I currently have

        • ComradeR@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is about to kiss the love of their lives “And now, I wanna show our newest sponsor! Hello Fresh have the best options so you can make your own dinner and blah blah blah…”

        • nik282000@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dreams? What about when it locks up and plays a virtual 200db 5khz tone for the rest of your life?

  • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    We don’t in my country, and I’m 100% sure people would complain if there was one. Even if they attended it, it would go completely over their heads probably.

    A shitty capitalist society with deeply rooted individualism can’t be treated unless it’s done from the root of the problem.

  • aracebo@unilem.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    My law/ethics prof was a big old NIMBY. Apparently, utilitarianism is when “neighbor allows cell tower in his yard and it block my view”

  • mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I went to a major medical university and studied humanities. The amount of soon-to-be doctors and nurses complaining about why they needed to study things like ethics, philosophy, or history astounded me, it’s like these people didn’t want to deal with the human aspect of medicine and instead just wanted to make money.

    I wouldn’t be shocked if more medschool students dropped out from the humanities courses than the medical ones, they hated it