Readit Newssalaries would rise, making it more costly, but motivating a few people to continue working there. in the long run it would contribute to make oil more expensive, which is really the only way to stop people from using it.
Sure, and they wouldn't be wrong to do so, just like they're not wrong now. We can't admit that on one hand we need something because there is no viable replacement and on the other consider that those that choose to work on that make a morally questionable choice.
right, they shouldn't directly be more responsible than consumers, but they should be responsible for the influence that they do have at their job.
obviously consumers are responsible for the pollution they create. just today my son had a fit because a friend tried to use plastic to start a fire. this may not have been the right response, but he knows that burning plastic is bad, and he acted on that.
i have more sympathy with the oil workers because their options most likely are to quit and be out of work. but anyone who studies to work in the oil industry is making a questionable moral choice. (depends on their attitude, maybe they are trying to contribute improvements to make the impact of fossil fuels less damaging. that would be good)
I don't think anyone except the most hardcore climate activists would be willing to accept that cost, so I don't think it's consistent for anyone except these to judge negatively people who choose to work in this industry. This doesn't change that we as consumers should try and use as little fuel as possible, opt for renewables where possible etc., that's the only way to guide the change. If we do that, the market will take care of the rest as the conditions allow it.
Do soldiers not carry responsibility for their actions while in an active army? What's the difference?
That leaves ambiguous situations where for example there is an order saying "get satellite data from that location". In this case, if the data end up used for something unlawful, I think the responsibility doesn't lie with the soldiers at the bottom of the chain, no.
Now for the case that best serves your comparison, generally serving in an army that very clearly wages a war of aggression. In this case yes I think soldiers carry the responsibility to not help in any way (which realistically would mean stop being soldiers). The difference in this case is that we can't compare an army waging an aggressive war, which is as clear an evil as we can imagine and is in fact considered a crime internationally, with a company that analyses data collected by consent, where the question is whether the mechanism for obtaining consent is good enough or not.
"Take care of me and mine" is a fine way to burn the world down to cinders.
Can you honestly tell me that how surveillance capitalism has unfolded over the past twenty years has been a net positive for democracy or for world stability?
I say no, and those well paid cogs in those machines are complicit. They don't need to feel shame. They need to accept the scope of what they are doing and be mindful of its impact.
Honest and legal doesn't necessarily mean "right". Those that work in the fossil fuel industry are for the most part doing what is honest and right. They are also (as are we all) complicit in catastrophic climate change.
if you work for advertising then your work isn't honest.
it's like saying being a janitor for a crime syndicate is honest work.
either way, your salary is coming from a dishonest source.
Wouldn't you agree for example that collecting and analysing user data for purposes of displaying relevant advertisements doesn't have to be dishonest, if the users consented to it? Maybe then the problem becomes that some methods of obtaining user consent are not honest -which would mean that there could be methods that are honest, and companies that can follow them.
And if the subject is so nuanced then maybe it's not fair to say that an employee that simply wants to work in their domain of expertise doesn't do honest work, just for failing to set more strict standards than the law with regards to their employer's activities.
Hands up if you've got a website selling printing cards for school, or an old cd business. These are the only ones I know here that printed a ton of money. The rest are just working long hours with golden handcuffs and a carrot in front of their nose.
I'll take the better syntax, thanks.