Keith Watson Keith.Watson@Kewill.com wrote:
[...] sometimes they produce good products and, as professionals(?), we should always use the best (in our own judgement) tools for the job in hand and trying to put our personal prejudices aside.
I think the question is, really, what weighting do you give to the practical benefits of the four freedoms, and do ethics matter when deciding what is the "best" tool? Is it purely a technical scoring decision and to hell with ethical as long as the job gets done? Does your reasoning hold only for computing, or for other things? Do you recycle? Do you use sustainable energy sources? Do you bank with someone who funds arms sales? Where is your pension money invested? etc...
UEA actually seems to have quite a good tradition in considering ethics in places where others do not, even if it sometimes takes a little prompting for TPTB to wake up. Maybe just a little prompting is needed again?
Yes, good point. But how about the ethics of the brief from whoever you're working for? i.e. if your employer (or whatever) doesn't specifically require you to apply such considerations should you? or perhaps one should provide a number of possible solutions among which are those that take such considerations into account?
Also there is the point that we, in theory, have the choice of not accepting any brief that doesn't accord with our own ethical stance.
I must admit that I would feel uncomfortable working directly for an arms manufacturer or similar but I have worked for pharmaceutical companies in the past and I'm not always happy about everything they do but there are other activities where I am.
In his book "The Empty Raincoat" (also published as "The Age of Paradox") Charles Handy discusses this at some length and points out that there can be circumstances where ethical considerations conflict with each other e.g. the difference between what's 'just' and what's 'fair'.
Keith ____________ Is there life before death? - Zen saying