I think your take is unhelpful, demanding, and damaging to engineering ethics. If you want to live in a 90s corporate workplace hierarchy model, that's your value system. But it is untenable and harms people in the long run.
Ethically speaking, the parent seemed to be demanding that some hypothetical designer put their livelihood on the line because good taste in UI design is paramount, we're not talking about building a skyscraper in a swamp out of twigs. Pat yourself on the back I guess if you want to volunteer to be a trillion dollar company's human meat shield, and relish in the virtue of being unemployed in a very bad market due to having a volatile emotional temperament, but I'd just recommend not doing that.
In the long run, no you don't want to set that much of your taste or expertise aside forever, but you shouldn't have to, it comes with all the things I said, trust & agency.
Americans may lack theory of mind of Venezuelans, but that doesn't invalidate thethe concerns of outsiders, as you yourself says it's TBD how things play out, especially with global ramifications and in the long run for all nations affected by this American action.
Agreed. But… the other alternative is continued repression and suffering of millions of people. Iranians are wishing their captors would fall next. Not that people will see those posts on blue sky.
No serious person actually argued the category error of respecting the sovereignty of a dictator but rather respecting the autonomy of a a nation and a people. And the empirical historic reasons are WHY this principle/heuristic ought to be followed, even if those did not articulate that.
It's a litmus test for conservative value systems since anyone who paid attention in high school social studies and history should have at least passing familiarity with the arguments.
Claiming we must honor the autonomy of people who have had their autonomy stripped away by a dictator is just as silly as saying we need to respect the sovereignty of the dictator himself.
This is a lot of rationalization to justify conservative worldview, America playing world police, and other such shortsighted political talking point fallacies.
I’m a Norwegian, I don’t ascribe to any one political leaning. But I observe the failings of the EU and European countries from within and know where this path leads, I see it every day. Call me any <label> you prefer I don’t care and don’t identify as any. I judge events and actions individually based on my own life experience and foundational morality, which also means I am not shackled by having to like everything a leader does when I like some things.
This was a good thing. It gets Venezuela out of Russia and China’s grasp, removes a cruel dictator, and puts the country’s resources to better use for both its people and the West. And as many problems as I have with many facets of the west it sure as hell beats whatever shitholes Russia and China are cooking — they are incompatible with the things I value, and yes I have been to the latter and will never return.
That just shows that popular will is not a justification for something. If the popular will was self destructive would a powerful entity be justified in giving them what they desire?
As a German, I can say I‘m very happy for the intervention some decades ago, but it’s of course just one example, potentially a bad one, and likely cannot be generalized — just wanted to throw this into the ring as a positive example.
> Germany waged war on just about the whole world, the response to that was one of defense, not offense.
I find it useful to distinguish legality from morality of the move of capturing Maduro and his wife.
One way I approach it is to ask myself: if one could have Maduro returned to Venezuela today, would one? Perhaps the answer that most people would give is yes (i.e. everyone would be better off), but I'm not so sure.
How much of this is if Hong Kong "friends" abroad hypothetically backed the UK invasion of Hong Kong, I just have no respect for this "my friends from that country validate simplistic politics" type of ad hominem. Victims and escapees of oppressive systems are filled with bitter and anger but that doesn't make their solutions automatically the right one.
reply