

Remind HN: Cowardice - DanI-S

If you are asked to do something to which you are morally opposed, and out of fear for personal loss you do not make your voice of opposition clearly heard, then you are a coward.<p>Our world was been built by numerous hands, many fine cowards amongst them. But you may have heroes, and I doubt that they are cowards.
======
logn
"If you are asked to do something to which you are morally opposed, and out of
fear for personal loss you do not make your voice of opposition clearly heard,
then you are a coward."

... or you are a victim of abuse and crime. I don't think I can fault people
with top secret clearance for keeping their mouths shut (at least not all of
them) and continuing doing what they're told. Basically the same scandal that
rocked the Catholic Church might soon rock our government. It's a fine line
though, because at a certain point, you're no longer the victim but the
abuser/criminal perpetuating the cycle of evil.

Also remind HN: [http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-
ethics](http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics)

------
yareally
That's kind of a loaded statement that seems acceptable when taken at face
value (and applied to the topic you are likely alluding to), but in reality,
cannot be used as a maxim for every circumstance. If what is considered
ethical is what does the most good for the greatest number of people, then
everything gets much more complicated.

For example, what if you are an elected official who is elected by
constituents who are in favor of something you are morally opposed to?
Although doing what is morally right (to you as an individual) is one approach
and advocated by philosophers such as Kant, it's not the only logical, ethical
outcome. In such a case doing what is morally right as an individual could be
considered selfish as it hurts more people than it helps (obviously depends on
the issue).

A utilitarian approach, where one factors in what is the "greatest good" for
the greatest number of people could be an equally valid solution. That
"greater good" could be in conflict with the politician's morals as well (as
the politician could have been elected by the constituents for certain
platforms, but not others). Such decisions could also result in personal loss
(as you mentioned) for the subject in question, but are the "right" thing to
do when considering more than just an individual.

Nothing is simple about ethics, otherwise we would have solved all of our
problems a long time ago with a single, valid approach.

