- Nolan Poe
- Goleta, CA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is an engineer morally responsible for harm caused by their creations?
I am currently on the path to become a mechanical engineer. I don't have exact numbers, but I'd estimate that about a half of all engineering work goes into weapons. This is based on anecdotal evidence I have gathered in my home town and is most certainly up for debate. If I am correct, though, I will probably end up designing instruments of death and destruction at one point in my life. If I work on a gun that kills an innocent man, woman or child, I don't know that I could sleep soundly ever again. I don't know that I could explain to the victim's mother why I made something so lethal. My worst nightmare is sitting on my deathbed thinking of nothing but those I helped kill. As Peter van Uhm explains, they can also be instruments of peace, I find that less than consoling considering the potential for misuse. I would appreciate thoughtful responses. It's easy to answer "no" but please consider the emotional aspects as well.
Closing Statement from Nolan Poe
This question had a variety of answers. Most agreed that weapons and weapons development were necessary. Some urged me to stick to what I feel is best, regardless of what the world and its nations want. A few suggested that I had already decided, which isn't true per se. The default scenario is for me to go about my career with little regard as to what my work will be used for. The reason I asked the question is because I was uneasy with this and curious about how others had rationalized it, if at all. I'd like to thank everyone for responding and helping me figure out what to do with my life.
Tim Allyn
Massive military might? Massive military surprise on their side and a massive intelligence, survelance (sp) and planning failure on the part of the U.S. History shows that the Allies had already swung the tables on the Japanese by the time we nuked them. The Nazis were also near defeat or defeated (I don't have my dates). And we were working with the Soviets (they were on our side).
Blame and responsibility are tough verbs to throw around. Blame and responsibility would go to the President and advisors. Perhaps the designers would just get the responsibility tag. Forgive me for what I have done, because I know not what I've done....some sort of religious proverb?
Mike dewaal
Joanne Donovan 30+
I say, each person who has designed a weapon, is partly responsible for every single death that weapon has caused, and I commend your sentiments Nolan, to be concerned about that. I agree with you. We all make choices in life. If you follow the commitment to peace, you cannot let the warmongers dissuade you.
Nolan Poe
Regarding the death tolls on the Japanese invasion, I agree that there are many other ways to solve the situation without so much death. What about dropping leaflets explaining the destructive power of the bomb over the cities about 2-3 days before the bomb drop. Needless to say, you would need to have fighter escorts and that might require an additional airplane for in-flight refueling of the short-range fighters, but that's a small price to pay for even a couple thousand civilians saved. Worst case, you cut the death toll in half. Nobody believes us in hiroshima, but they get the idea in nagasaki. Best case, the Japanese actually believe us and you only kill maybe 100-1000 civilians. Let's be adults here, the Japanese have a culture of pride and honor, but do you really think that what we did was necessary to convince them to surrender?
Edit: I think this is off-topic. It has also been fully debated elsewhere and you can look up the points on both sides if you wish to investigate further.
Joanne Donovan 30+
No one who calls himself or herself a christian could ever justify designing or selling weaponry, without committing an act of total hypocrisy.
I do not call Edward Long a warmonger, I do not know him at all really, I was refering to the military and govt personelle who produce the pro war propaganda.
We are a civilisation that has evolved through the destructive effects of war. We are used to them, the most stupid of us, believe we depend on them. We do not. We have many other options open to us today, and in fact we always did have.
War is not only a crime against the victim but the the people swinging the bombs also pay a price. Sometimes its a very high price.
If the people lobbing the bombs at Japan, had really wanted a peaceful solution they could have found one. One suggestion: throw the bomb at a place where there are no people. Give them an evacuation warning. You seem to be very creative when it comes to your designs, but not so creative when it comes to a path that pursues peace, why is that? Dont yout hink it is too important? Is it better really to be the 'winner'?
I get the feeling you have made up your mind up about this already. Why bother to put up the question then, to make yourself feel better about a choice you have already made? To arrange a little justification for yourself? Personally I prefer my adverseries to meet me head on, not pretend to be something they are not.
Nolan Poe
Responding to your point about all human bloodshed being a crime, I think that is naive at best. Imagine you were approximately 300m outside a village that was being raided. You also have a sniper rifle. Not wanting to be caught off-guard, you watch through the telescopic sights on the rifle. You see a man rounding up all of the woman and children in the village and begin to rape and kill them one by one. Are you honestly telling me it is a crime to put a shot through this man's brain? This stuff happens. Are you so naive as to think that reducing the total loss of life is wrong if it means killing a man about to kill 50 people? Don't get me wrong, this isn't about choosing if you should execute him or take him captive, but whether you should kill him outside of the legal system or let innocents die.
I'm a pacifist, by the way, but I accept that in emergency situations, laws are replaced by the duty and responsibility of everyone to protect everyone.
EDIT: 300m is pretty far for the average TEDster. Let's say you're 100m out but really well hidden.
Carlin Covey
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/roger-boisjoly-73-dies-warned-of-shuttle-danger.html
jag . 50+
You could check out EWB (Engineers Without Borders) http://www.ewb-uk.org/
WEDC http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/
Redr http://www.redr.org.uk/
Feel free to contact me if you want more info :)
Nolan Poe
Unrelated: Civil Engineers don't have to deal with the moral stuff as much, because you know.... Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets. ;)
aaron ecoologic
> I will probably end up designing instruments of death and destruction
unless you decide not to.
Peter Van Uhm's opinion, is just the opinion of a person who chose a gun.
Are you responsible? is the inventor of the solar panel responsible for lowering pollution? I think so, the most of the responsibility belongs to the people that choose that technology, but that guy's got his merit. You'll have your small part of responsibility for the good and the bad outcomes. Designing weapons, you do the math.
There is no way back, more powerful weapons will be developed with or without your contribution, but seems to me that you don't really want to get involved, and I agree. So why not to focus on the other half of the jobs?
Nolan Poe
John Tax
Biological Engineering is an area that needs intense scrutiny. It would be too easy to create some apocalyptic entity either by malevolent intent or accident (valuable intention). Rest assured that, like meteorites & earthquakes, it will happen.
In the end, only time can tell whether any of it is valuable or not. There are always two sides to every coin. Positives arise out of every cataclysm. Death to dinosaurs and the rise of mammals for instance. What happens, happens. We give it all a meaning/intent, either good or bad, which will change over time. Like mammals destroying the planet?
Richard Nota 20+
In addition, the owner of the product becomes relevant if the product can be used against the public good.
Of course, not every situation can be envisaged and we have to be reasonable. Time is not the only arbiter. Many things are reasonably predictable. When it comes to weapons it is a very fine line.
edward long 100+
Richard Nota 20+
You replied in the wrong thread (but that is why my reply is here).
You may not have intended it but your argument does include the specifics of a situation. Having simply identified that designing and building arms can justified is insufficient to morally justify it is generally to all situation.
Simple scenario ...
Interviewer: "You knew your employer was selling the weapons to criminals on the black market."
Designer: "Yes"
Interviewer: " But you continued to design them to operate efficiently and did nothing else"
Designer: "Yes"
Interviewer: "Why"
Designer: "That was my job".
I acknowledge that life is generally more complicated but that is the strength of your argument and it is a cop out.
Ladders are a much simpler practical consideration and ladder design and manufacture is not morally dubious because we generally understand and accept the realities of misuse. The same cannot be said of said of weapons design and manufacture which can reasonably be concluded as involving much more secrecy, subterfuge and plane lack of morality.
edward long 100+
Richard Nota 20+
“I was ordered to do it” can in circumstances be a reasonable defence. As a moral principle it is no defence and to my understanding has long been discredited as such. To my mind your position was an analogous “cop out” for the reasons I put.
“You think weapons designers do a disservice to the world by working in an immoral industry.” While I do think that the industry is morally dubious I did not say that. I could respect a weapons designer or many weapons designers based on their various specific situations.
I have no reason to believe you intended to put your opinion any less strongly than myself and your indignation is misplaced.
Comment deleted
Joanne Donovan 30+
John Tax
Richard Nota 20+
Consider Murphy's Law and the potential catastrophic outcome of putting a simple part the wrong way into a complicated machine (e.g. Airbus A380). The part was never intended to go in the wrong way but if it is simple to put it in the wrong way it is likely to happen.
I am guessing Joanne Donovan made a similar assumption to you.
Zak Wilson
Nolan Poe
John Tax
Mark Meijer 100+
Nolan Poe
Mark Meijer 100+
Last time I glanced over this page, someone was already offering you a job.
In your question you suggested that you wouldn't want anyone to get hurt by stuff you create, and yet you argue for the potential merits of weapons at every opportunity here. I don't care to argue whether you're wrong or right about that, point is that apparently you are more than capable of weighing the pros and cons as you see them. But in the end you know what weapons are used for, that's why you formulated this question the way you did.
Notice you didn't ask about harm, you asked about your responsibility for it. You're not asking whether people could get hurt by weapons you create, you already know. You're asking whether you should care, or whether you should still help to create weapons because they might get used constructively. You ask because it's safe betting on those jobs. You ask because you want to get answers that say "sure go ahead, follow the easy money, it's not your problem how people use the weapons you create, if you contributed them with noble intent."
And if that's how you really felt, then indeed it's not your problem. But you would not have asked this question if that's really how you feel about it. You want permission, you want to get convinced that it's ok. But nobody can do that for you. Whether it's ok for you, depends only on you. This is your own deathbed you asked about. You can argue it any way you like. Others could offer arguments you might like. But since you asked this question, I'm guessing you won't be able to fool yourself in the long run.
Nolan Poe
Richard Nota 20+
Joanne Donovan 30+
GORDON DOLAN
Always liked Lennon's remark- "What if they gave a war- and nobody came?"
John Tax
Nolan Poe
Leonard white
Nolan Poe
Richard Nota 20+
Although the amount of work that goes into weapons is large I would be very surprised if it was anywhere near half of all engineering work. That would, in my opinion, be a very strong argument against van Uhm. Nevertheless, it is not black and white and you need to form your own opinion. Compromises always have to be made but lines also have to be drawn to remain self honest.
Nolan Poe
And one need only look at the breakdown of the US National budget to see how much our country contributes to the weapons industry.
Philip Marshall
There will always be those who view violence as the easiest solution. That the views of "others" are not acceptable, and that there is no middle ground upon which to build the bridge between" them" and "us." This is where most engineers have come to stand - that they are perserving peace, stopping further violence, preventing war by having no one willing to face what comes from it.
No one seeks to avoid war more than the soldier, for he has to carry it out. He knows the horror, and he knows the costs. Perhaps war can best be prevented not by screaming "Peace, Peace" but rather teaching everyone just exactly what war entails, what it looks like, smells like, feels like in the heart and bone.
Tim Allyn
Nolan Poe
edward long 100+
Nolan Poe
edward long 100+
Micheal Simmons
The Japanese effort was not nearly as far along.
Oppenheimer wanted the post war world to have ready access, so as to eliminate any "arms race" that would ultimately develop if one nation had the "secret" and the others wanted that same secret.
Be that as it may, unfortunately most of the world's most prominent advances is technology, science and medicine are usually linked to major conflicts. Reconstructive surgery is a premier example in the field of medicine.
Also be aware that no matter what the engineer's intent in his/her creation is, it can always be modified by others to make an extremely efficient weapon to some degree.
Maxim invented the machine gun hoping that such a horrible weapon would reduce the number of conflicts that would require its use. He did not succeed.
Joanne Donovan 30+
Actually David Montgomery, as weird and crazy as this sounds, every house in the vicinity of my house IS a gun free home. Where I live, it is a foregone conclusion to all my neighbours, even the shady ones, that my home is a gun free home. Guess what? I sleep real well at night, and I even answer my door at ten pm without fear. You have just illustrated my point perfectly. When people create a violent society, when they think they depend on weapons, they are never really safe ever again. Your system must be rotten to the core, that you think you need guns just to feel safe.
edward long 100+
David Montgomery
Germany was on the threshold of developing the Bomb. And, there was a submarine carrying those developments to Japan. If Germany had completed the development and Japan had built the Bomb do you not believe that they would have used it against us?
If we do not develop, test, and build ever increasingly effective weapons the other side will.
But, to answer your question...the developers and builders knew exactly who the Bombs were to be used against.
"Those who beat their guns into plows will plow for those that did not." Thomas Jefferson.
"I own a gun not because I want kill...I have it because I want to live."
If you really feel so strong about weapons, place a sign in you front window, or on your front lawn, that reads: "This is a gun-free home." I dare you.
Carlin Covey
http://www.atomicheritage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63
If the link doesn't work, just search for "Manhattan Project" "The Scientists' Petition".
Nolan Poe
@David Montgomery
Seriously??? "the Liberal Universities"? First of all, I go to one of the most conservative universities on the planet. Second, I really do not believe you are adding to the conversation, so unless you have something free of ad hominem attacks, I would like to politely ask you to leave. As a side note, look at edward long's comments to see how to correctly argue the viewpoint in your comment without seeming condescending and unintelligent.
@Avenir, I doubt very many people but the top scientists knew what was going on until they actually tested the bombs. They were extremely careful about intel leaks.
Tim Allyn
As far as WWII goes, the nuclear bombs used by the U.S. would not fit your definition of equal force. Excessive force - yes. Did it save U.S. / Allies lives? Most Likely. Have its unintended consequences balanced its intent. Doubtful? The creation and use of the technology has led to a massive use of resources (material and brain power) that would have, could have been put to better use, with more peaceful and socially beneficial goals, both foreign and domestic. Furthermore, the use of the technology basically crippled if not destroyed generations of people from 'peripheral' nations in central and south America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia as the Nuke threat between the Soviets and U.S. was played out. The non-peaceful use of the technology has shown the technology to be the single worse invention the planet has seen. Unless of course the 'collateral' effects were intended by the inventors.
I do hope Mr. Poe' engineering career works to undo what engineers have previously done.
edward long 100+
GORDON DOLAN
Nolan Poe
Comment deleted
Nolan Poe
Mike Tischer
Imagine if you created a new way to detect heat, for the advancement of medicine, and it became a component of a missile. Would you be at fault?
Or, you work on a project that allows a vehicle manufacturer to produce a automobile that can scale the highest mountains for rescue and exploration missions, and that technology becomes part of a new tank clone? Would you be at fault?
In both cases, I'd say no.
Actually, I hope people like you DO work on more weaponry, and defense systems, because you appreciate life to the fullest, and you'll always balance ethics in your design, and will instill that into your design. Good luck to you!
Nolan Poe
edward long 100+
Nolan Poe
edward long 100+
Nolan Poe
Richard Nota 20+
It is very much the business of those who design and build whether they are wrongly or rightly used. It is reasonable to believe that many weapons designers do not consider the morality of their business or their employer and do it for money. He does have a say, limited though its effect may be, but he might be crucified for making a moral stand and your comments are not helpful in that regard. Weapons design and building is a morally dubious industry even if some have a justifiable moral stand.
Eduardo Padilla
The thing is that the responsibility is so diluted, it doesn't feel like it. But you have to analize it like this: if you don´t do it, perhaps not much would happen (someone would work extra hours to do what you would be doing); but, if people, as you, don't work on designing them, then the change would be obvious. It's the categorical imperative, i guess. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
I used to be an engineer, and worked in places where my job didn't make people's life easy. I provided information to decide if people should be fired, and how many. I made production faster, leaner, but people were laid off. I couldn't handle it, because, even when I was doing an excellent job, and I wasn't firing anyone, my input resulted in harming people, so I made up my mind and, eventually, started studying biology.
I do think that the results of your work have a moral weight, however far you can see it. That's why you have to analyze what you do and decide if it harms people, and if you can avoid it. In your case, I think it's simple, given that the harm is so obvious. More specifically, call David Hamilton.
Nolan Poe
Eduardo Padilla
Nolan Poe
David Hamilton 50+
http://youtu.be/z0_nuvPKIi8
Nolan Poe