Ethical Insanity

[evensgrey]

Funny you should mention this.  As part of the readings for this same class, we're reading a case study on a Russian Engineer called "Peter Palchinsky:  Ghost of the Executed Engineer"
It points out that he kept giving engineering and humanitarian advice to the Bolshevik government, and, despite a stellar track record of both efficiency AND working conditions greatly improving where his advice WAS taken prior in the Tsarist government, Stalin and Lenin would ignore him.  Eventually, Stalin ordered he be shot (1929) and so he was.

It also pointed out more than 5000 slave laborers who lost their lives in a canal project alone, AND the number of engineers decreasing from 10k to about 7k "with most simply disappearing" (read: getting shot).

The specific instance I was thinking of was a rocket engineer who worked on weapons research while in prison during WWII.

[Travis Retriever]

In class, we were discussing morals; from either the universalism approach; or the utilitarian approach.  The former defined as: "positive rights for all!" (healthcare, food, etc). The latter being "Greatest good for greater number of people, regardless of the minority."
I nearly threw up on the inside when our professor discussed the idea of a moral question of national debt; admitting that "yeah, it does cost the unborn and the young.  But the question is, do we defer gratification of our infrastructure and risk future issues, or respect their rights?"
Granted, that's a paraphrase.
At least the "or respect their rights?" part was.

Needless to say, bullshit like this gov't debt crap is a reason I'm not having children.  Fuck you GovCo. You don't have the right to my unborn children.

[Travis Retriever]

Another bit from my textbook made my brain's logic circuit short.  It was two people arguing over whether a new gov't regulation is justified.
The one in support of it said, "The burden of proof should rest on anyone who wants to expose a worker to even a possible danger."

No, it doensn't you fucking asshole.  It rests on whoever makes the positive claim.  You are making the positive claim that it is moral to put a gun to an employer's head and force them to provide this or that for safety with no evidence that them not doing so would even endanger the workers.  You are the one putting people's lives at risk you sanctimonious asshole. 

And yes, because anyone against gov't regulation is doing it because he hates workers, the environment, the poor, grandma, puppies, children's smiles, etc.  Give me a fucking break!  The person disagreeing gave a solid case (lack of positive evidence) for not wanting the new regulation.
And even then, that doesn't mean free market people or people arguing against gov't regulation are against ALL regulation.  Ever heard of UL?  ISO9000?  We just believe regulation is done better by a competitive, bottom up organization.

The guy also goes on about how if the risk was comparable to driving a car, it's different, because when a person drives a car, they are aware of and choose that risk, but not when voluntarily agreeing to work around dangerous chemicals?  Piss off.