Internet, answer my ethical questions for me

[winterkoninkje]

So I was recently made aware of the SMART award offered by the DoD and I'm considering whether to apply or not. Now, as those of you who know me fairly well, I may well have moral reasons for not doing so. The question I'm uncertain of, is whether and the extent to which accepting such an award actually would conflict with my morals.

Assuming I make the cut to get the award and pass the security clearance, the award in sum: 31k$/year stipend, full tuition, 1k$ book allowance, and random other things like health benefits. Never say the DoD doesn't know how to entice people in. The obligations in sum: DoD retains certain (unspecified) rights to any inventions, summers spent in paid internship with DoD laboratory or agency, post-graduation employment in DoD civilian S&E workforce (laboratory or agency) for as many years as award received for, and other random things I'm not too worried about. The post-grad employment may require "mobility", the internships are unspecified. Applicants can list agencies they'd prefer to work in, but ultimately it's up to what the DoD decides they want/need. If the contract is broken, then they want all their money back.

Naturally, other benefits would include continued employment opportunities with the DoD, though I have other plans for life (which may also benefit from the addition to my CV). Depending on where I end up transferring to, I'd be looking at one or two years until graduation, meaning one or two years working before I can start on my doctorate which would push that back from 27~28 to 28~30, which pushes getting the degree back to 32~34 if I stay on track— still not too late for a career as a professor, though getting perilously close unless I already have a number of publications by then. Another indirect concern is about that mobility thing; I'm not too concerned for my own sake, but I'm uncertain how it might affect things with my latest romance. Which is ultimately something only she can answer, and no doubt will depend on what her career situation is looking like at that point, but nevertheless.

To make my question more concrete, I'm a pacifist or more specifically nonviolent. To be clear, it's not so much that I have problems killing people per se, it's that I object to the use of violent force as a means of resolving conflict. Having seen some small portion of the depravity to which humanity can sink in enacting violence against itself, as with Einstein, I know that the only hope for our survival is to overcome that most base instinct to revert every conflict into one for blood. To be brutally honest, it's not even the survival of the species I'm concerned with so much as the survival of me and my own and our ability to discover great wonders such as settling the stars or whatever else may be out there. The use of violence to resolve conflict has always and will always be at odds with the desire for survival and exploration. Say what you will about whether the majority of humanity coming to abandon violence is possible, if it is not then we are doomed, if we do not try then we are doomed, consequently we can accept defeat or we can try.

Now, my employment with the DoD would be as a civilian and so I have no need to worry about my own direct actions, however the question is the extent to which my indirect actions and their indirect effects would encourage or discourage the use of violence overall. At one extreme, I could design a critical component for a weapon. Whether the weapon was used in actuality or used only to threaten, either constitutes reinforcing the use of violence. On the other hand, my research could be in something more benign and generally applicable like communications. For which there is a general trend that greater levels of communication tend to reduce conflict (even if only by homogenizing the communicants) though there can also be backlashes when one communicant feels they cannot stop the communication nor hold their own against the cultural influx. On the third hand, my research could also lead to something such as powerful AI, the effects of which could revolutionize the world in dramatic ways which would be difficult to label as either good or bad.

Certainly I'll be putting in for other grants and fellowships, and I have a while before needing to apply for this one as well as being able to decline the award. But I'm curious what my readership thinks of the situation, either those who are also pacifists or those who are not but are willing to consider things from that position.

Discuss.

Comments

[banalapercu.livejournal.com]

While the teenage boy in me is wowing over an opportunity like this, any type of work for the DoD unless it is in the creation of equipment that helps out the medical operations aspect is circumspect in my book. Communications systems can be seen as perhaps helping to eliminate the accidental deaths of civilians, but part of me thinks that they would be just more just to help improve the efficiency of killing people. I suppose my pacifism works on a different level, to me anything done to help another's demise that was avoidable should be avoided.

At the same time it's a fantastic opportunity. I guess I just wonder what happens if you end up working on a targeting system or something like that. Would your conscious be at ease? If so, go for it. If not, perhaps thinking a little more would be good.

I sound like I'm saying not to take it, which isn't what I'm trying to say. I guess I just wonder about what you'd do if you were assigned to a position that made you morally uncomfortable.

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

I can certainly understand not wanting to contribute in part to the demise of others, and it is in practice something I agree with wholeheartedly. I mostly wanted to point out that the underlying morality of my pacifism is not aimed at reducing my part in harming others per se, though that follows naturally as a consequence of the underlying aim which is to improve the quality of life for all by fostering exploration, introspection, sustainability, and communal resolution of conflict. I do not believe that death is bad of itself (e.g. I also believe in euthanasia, but it's sort of a "hurt" vs "harm" issue).

On the one hand, the majority of DoD projects are circumspect. On the other, the majority of technological advances which help in creating our (marginally more) enlightened modern world came from military technological research. I guess the question is what the likelihood is of me ending up on a portion of that spectrum which would not trouble my conscience.

GPS

[autumnfalling.livejournal.com]

The Global Positioning System was initially used to guide cruise missiles, among other things. So there is one example.

There are examples of some applications to the civillian sector that have not or would not have had a positive influence. For example, I read somewhere (can't find a reference now) that the US Government considered using nukes to blast a corridor through some mountains for a highway, but concluded having to wait for the background count to subside sufficiently was not practical. I'll try to find a reference on that later.

[xuenay.livejournal.com]

"If you want peace, prepare for war" is also one thing that you might want to consider. In other words, the improvement of new weapons technology can potentially reduce violent conflict - either by making people less willing to go to war with the possessor of those weapons, or by making the wars quicker and more decisive when they do break out. On the other hand, it doesn't sound very implausible to assume that wars getting quicker and more decisive will reduce the threshold for going to war...

Another point - I don't know how much influence the actual researchers working for those agencies have on the projects, but if you're working for them, there's a small chance that you'll get to influence their development towards more peaceful purposes. Like emphasizing the communication-enabling aspects of a new technology that could also be used for destruction, or something. Of course, gaining such influence would probably require a longer career for those agencies.

[sage-asunder.livejournal.com]

On that if you want peace, prepare for war bit.... can you show me some good solid research? Its seems to be counter-intuitive to what we know about conflict and armament escalation. As a sociologist, my eyebrow is raised.

[xuenay.livejournal.com]

I don't have at hand any actual research per se, but an obvious example would be nuclear weapons and the fact that the USA and USSR never ended up in a full-scale World War III (even if there were close cases). http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html is a more general essay on the topic - the logic seems sound to me, though I'm not qualified to truly criticize it.

Of course, it's admittable that nuclear weapons are an extreme case, and it could be that the principle doesn't necessarily always apply on smaller scales. Still, I'd believe any nation to seriously take the opponent's armament level into consideration before going to war. I'm limiting myself to discussion of nation-to-nation wars here - obviously the principle is less applicable to terrorist groups and fanatics who have less to lose.

[sage-asunder.livejournal.com]

What you are talking about its the hypothesis of mutually assured destruction. while the USSR and the USA never went into full scale nuclear war, they did both escalate their arms and came dangerously close too many time. Honestly the logic of having a bigger stockpile to rpevent your neighbor from attacking you is fundamentally flawed. More over there is nothing to say that the amassment of arms on either side is what prevented nuclear warfare. It could have been (and more likely was) any number of other factoers including economic pressure, the UN, frnce, oil negotiations, iran, chinese economic instability. etc...

Not a Hypothesis

[autumnfalling.livejournal.com]

It was a doctrine that was put into effect. The arms race in terms of nuclear warhead stockpiles persisted because each side had to maintain the ability to destory the otherside's second-strike capability.

I also think that the "Cold War" is a bit of a misnomer. As you pointed out, things got pretty warm. :) I also think you made exactly the point of the doctrine.

they did both escalate their arms and came dangerously close too many time.

I think the point is that they never did, and MAD is quite likely the reason why.

Re: Not a Hypothesis

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

Well, the hypothesis is that if you can ensure that another's aggression will lead to mutual destruction then that other will never initiate things for fear of their own survival.

Certainly the hypothesis was assumed true and used as justification for the arms race, and it so happens that full-scale nuclear warfare never came to pass, but neither of those two points verifies the hypothesis as true. The military stockpiles of the modern world and the ability to inflict grievous damage on anyone who would dare to attack first far outstrip the materiel available in earlier eras, however military aggression still occurs. While we don't tend to have the rampant border conflicts from earlier eras, that can be explained by other sociological changes in global structuring of the world more accurately and effectively than applying the hypothesis of mutual assured destruction.

It's still a hypothesis, just one which was acted on by assumption of its validity.

Re: Not a Hypothesis

[sage-asunder.livejournal.com]

i said hypothesis of in the sense that it was the hypothesis of that doctrine that in such a state of events mutual destruction would assured. this however cannot be backed up by historical data suggesting that either side first had intention of using arms or force, or that either side had the technological and governmental resources to assure the annihilation of either side.

mutually assued destruction was a misnomer, there was nothing assured about it.

Re: Not a Hypothesis

[sage-asunder.livejournal.com]

moreover, one cannot make a logcal case for MAD being responsible for the tenuous arms reservation in the cold war. there are so many confounding factors and poltical pressures outside of MAD, that one policy structure and theoretical standing cannot be said to have klkept the peace in that conflict.

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

There's a major problem with the "If you want peace, prepare for war" adage: I don't want peace, I want a cessation of the use of violence or threat thereof. Assuming the adage holds true and my goal were peace, then sure.

However, while better weapons might reduce the enactment of violence (either through lack of willingness or through sheer effectiveness) one must ask how it is that such weapons reduce the enactment of violence. For the lack-of-willingness argument it is through the threat of violence, whether direct or indirect. Nations don't make nukes to use them; they make nukes to threaten to use them. Nuclear weaponry, and indeed any superweapon, is the diploma requisite for an entry-level position at the bargaining table of world politics. Considering how many there are out there, it's worth considering why not one has been used since WWII.

As for the decisiveness argument, that is causing violence to prevent violence. There's another adage that violence only breeds violence. While I think that adage is equally poorly researched, it seems both intuitive and plausible. Sure, this outbreak may be stopped with fewer units violence than without the superweapon, but what about next time? and the time after that? Even if causing one death prevented causing thousands, there's a diminishing return. There's no way to cause no deaths with that method: either you kill everyone (no deaths after that, though the point seems moot) or you keep killing indefinitely.

Either of these is directly counterindicated by my goals of eliminating violence (or its threat) as a means of conflict resolution. And that's assuming the adage is true. There is anecdotal evidence for it not being so. If the cost of going to war at all is total annihilation, then once provoked to war one must fight it to the extreme. This was the fear of the Cold War which never materialized for numerous reasons, though the constant state of fear from the threat of violence had repercussions that are still felt today. However, that fear is also the actuality of "warfare" against terrorist nations and organizations. When they've nothing left to loose, what do you threaten them with? How do you stop them when they'd rather bring you down with them than to survive themselves since survival is a denied option? The reason any "war on terrorism" can never be won is because terrorists aren't fighting a war, they're fighting a crusade no matter their cause. Tis better to die a martyr than to die worthlessly.

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how much influence actual researchers have on choosing their projects either. One can always quit, but I'm not sure what sort of leeway there is to say "not this project, but I'll work on that one next door". I'd guess that it's not a unique situation for them to contend with since many intellectual types have qualms about militarism. The question is whether they're desperate enough for scientists that they'll bend, or if they're jaded enough to just go and find someone who will do the dirty work. I'm hoping the fine print in the contract they'd have me sign would be a bit more detailed, though it is security-clearance government-obfuscation level stuff so it may not.

[sage-asunder.livejournal.com]

It would seem to me that you have hit one of those wonderful walls in the ethics of the inabsolute. It would seem that you need to conclude what degree to which you are comfortable being involved in a system of violence. While not ALL of what the DoD research does is violent, it is the formally sanctioned instituion by which we as a nation effect violence upon others. Now on another, but still related note, to some extent all Americans are involved in a vilent system of oppression, as we violently oppress others with our consumption and political strucure in either manifest or latent forms.

So in working for the DoD, in your perception, would you be participating in such oppression too greatly? would your involvement in the organization, regardless of involvement amount to adding to the violence? These are questions we cannot answer for you.

However, if you were asking me, I would never trust anything Rummsfeld ever ran. Violence, intolerance, homophobia, oppression, and evil aside. Hes creepy.

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

Certainly all American citizens are to some level accountable for enacting a violent system of oppression on the world, though I am uncertain how it is possible to counter such a thing. One could renounce US citizenship, though most other developed countries aren't much better and going to undeveloped nations is just running away. I can very well see an argument that remaining within the belly of the beast and trying desperately to steer it aside (through voting, awareness raising, etc) may be the most effective course, so long as one also reduces the extent to which they are fueling the beast (by living a less consumerist lifestyle, etc).

I'm not sure how well that same argument would hold for working in the DoD though. But to some extent it may if it involves medical, communications, or AI research. I think part of the reason I have difficulty coming up with a solid answer on whether a DoD job would be participating in oppression too greatly is that I have a very poor idea of the breadth of their current research and practices. The research arm is certainly different from the industrial contract arm and different from the armed forces arms. I know a few folks who have worked with the DoD, though at higher levels than I would likely be working, and they're not really at liberty to say much. Though I could try asking and see what they say.

[sage-asunder.livejournal.com]

I would try asking. I mean in the end I can't answer your koan for you...but I hope you the ebst in figuring it out and will likely find something to harass you about anyway you go ^_^

[sage-asunder.livejournal.com]

And as far as trying to minimize your particiation in oppression, boycotting, ebing less consumerist, ofsetting and reducing your carbon production, and working to end the oppression your people are responsble for are incredibly goodways. I mean honestly noone can wash their hands of it, but you cancertainly have a lot less blood on yours...

[xuenay.livejournal.com]

You could always try asking the people running the program directly, too. They have an e-mail addy listed on their "Contact ASEE" page.

This gets to where I was thinking

[autumnfalling.livejournal.com]

Regarding the economic oppression inflicted on the rest of the world to serve the needs and interests of the US (and its consumers). Being a consumer and beneficiary of that system is one thing. Paying taxes into it is another. One way to look at it - if you consume $30k of government money, that will offset your contribution to the warchest for awhile, depending on how steep your tax bill is. ;)

Well I'm being a bit facitious and dropping 3 comments into a month-old conversation probably makes this a bit of a moot point anyway. :) But I found this post in your journal interesting and thought I'd respond on a few things.

Now that over a month has passed, did you make a decision? (Maybe I should go back and read older entries more closely).

[jes5199.livejournal.com]

last year they gave it to Jennifer Lopez???

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I actually remember hearing something about that back when they gave her the award. I had no idea what SMART was at the time..