Defense Job Ethics

Mako060

I posted this on reddit and received many insightful responses but I figured I would ask here as well.

I may soon be offered a job allegedly offering somewhere between 150 - 200k, which seems like quite a bit of money to me, at minimum more than twice my current salary and more than any other job I have been considered for since starting looking for a new position. I am in my early 30s. Relative to my current job it would increase my career capital a great bit but I could maybe land comparable roles in that regard. It's hard to say, not certain.

The job would be helping with circuits for any customer interested, but the main customers would be DoD and defense system makers for "electronic warfare" purposes. So mostly communications, improving detection, improving stealth, EM interference, ect. No ammunitions or things that directly cause death, to the extent one thinks that matters.

In my job search until this point I have refused to apply to jobs at defense contractors and have turned down interviews from recruiters because it just seemed icky, but I have to say the pay and more indirect nature of things (I'm not working for the defense contractors or DOD, technically, my employer would be a university lab with some number of non-defense clients which is why I applied in the first place, I didn't know it was defense related) just causes cognitive dissonance

thoughts?

9 Reactions

Comments12

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 5:37 AM

ellie2mo9

I've previously faced a similar decision. Here is why I decided to steer clear of the American war machine:

Other commenters have pointed out that American military supremacy is preferable to military supremacy by a different power. I agree. However, most of what the US military is actually doing has nothing to do with great power conflicts. The military has mostly been involved in fighting wars in third world countries. The chance that you help maintain US military supremacy is low, the chance that you create something that will help soldiers kill someone that EA is trying to help (via GiveDirectly, Givewell, etc.) is high.
I believe it would be challenging for a moral person to exist in the social context of a group that is working on behalf of the U.S. military. I have a friend who I believe to be a good person at heart. He has always cared for the people around him. When offered enough money, he took a job working on a nuclear weapons related technology. At first, he justified this to himself by saying that the he was making the missiles more accurate so they could kill fewer people. But when he got to his job, that's not how his coworkers viewed things. They believed that what they were doing was morally okay because they didn't extend their moral circle past the borders of America. It's very difficult to convince yourself that you're a good person when your coworkers are flippantly discussing how they are working to help the military kill people. My friend drinks a lot now.
The military industry isn't the only place offering good pay. The trade off isn't between not doubling your pay vs. working for the military industry. It's between putting more time/energy into a job search vs. working for the military industry. You can likely find a job with comparable pay elsewhere if you keep looking.

Mako0602mo2

Thanks for the response, I do not think your third point is correct though as I mentioned in the original post, this is the highest paying thing I have been under consideration for and I do not expect that to change. Your first point I will have to look into more thoroughly

ellie2mo1

That makes sense. As to my first point, it'd point you towards this Wikipedia page. All but one war that the US has fought since WW2 has been waged against a third world country.

The US has killed over 400,000 civilians since 2001 via our wars in the Middle East.

Vaipan2mo6

I've sent your post to someone who has 20+ years of experience in the field of US intelligence and who has recently gone into EA, you might be contacted by them soon! Happy to read this kind of post anyway--this kind of thoughts does definitely not cross everyone's mind when faced with such a situation.

Mako0602mo1

Thanks for forwarding it to them, if they decide to follow up I'd be interested in what insight they may have.

CAISID2mo4

One of the things I think is important to remember when it comes to Defence is that the idea of boundaries between military technology and civilian technology hasn't really existed since the 1970s. A vast amount of defence technology now is dual-use, meaning that even people working in (for example) the video games or automotive industry are, in a potentially unaware manner, designing hardware and software for the defence industry. And funnily enough vice-versa. So that line gets fuzzy fast. It sounds like your work is dual-use so it might be a bit complex for you to work through, in terms of ethics.

As for the hard ethics there, it depends on your own ethics and what you want to accomplish with the work. If the finance is the main draw, then that's it's own thing for only you to answer. If you want to make 'wider impact' in a positive way, then that's a whole other thing that again I guess falls to you and relates largely to the role. There's plenty of people work with stakeholders they aren't exactly stoked about in order to achieve a larger goal.

I asked myself a similar question the first time I had the opportunity to do AI Governance with a police force, as someone who was from a background which often has friction with police. Some mixed feelings there. I eventually decided that the chance to make positive impact was worth it, but plenty of other people might feel otherwise.

In my job search until this point I have refused to apply to jobs at defense contractors and have turned down interviews from recruiters because it just seemed icky

I would end by saying that if something makes you feel 'icky' it might not be worth doing it, no matter what the more neutral ethics say. I'm happy with the lines I have drawn, and it's important that you are as well. Not sure any of us can help with that :)

Larks2mo3

I would prefer the US be stronger relative to its adversaries (Russia, China etc.) so the direct effects of working in defense seem positive to me.

Brad West2mo2

One thing to consider is that the job will be filled by someone, perhaps without your moral scruples/EA perspective. Is there any benefit to the world by having you or someone with your moral views in that position? Is it likely that the difference in effectiveness between you and the counterfactual will be high (if not, maybe take it and ETG).

niplav2mo3

I've found Replaceability (Paul Christiano, 2013) an interesting exploration of the different levels this question can take on. Takeaway: It's complicated, but you're less replaceable than you think.

Brad West2mo2

I see people disagree with me. I can see a lot of bases on which people would disagree and it would be interesting to see which ones apply.

Because OP's job is technical rather than policy oriented, it is unlikely that a difference in character in the person doing the job would make a difference in outcomes. I might agree in a context where there the occupant of the job might be able to make a difference in policy choice.
Taking a job and supporting a morally wrong industry is wrong regardless of whether the same wrong would result counterfactually.
There are reasons to believe the counterfactual of OP taking the job would be better (for instance, OP might be significantly more competent than the one who would be counterfactually hired).
Other reasons? Curious

Mako0602mo1

Thanks, my honest guess is that the counterfactual job acceptor would be more competent and effective than me, though it seems a bit weird to accept it on that basis haha

Arturo Macias2mo-5