It's less about whether it's moral in an absolute sense and more about whether and how long you could live with yourself while doing it. If you wouldn't be comfortable doing it, don't do it.

Just make sure you design the exhaust port so that a well placed proton torpedo can bring it all down.

Tend to agree with @fdrake. Do you want to be that person or not? If you do, what anyone else thinks doesn't matter. If you don't, the same.

:rofl: :rofl:

Obviously not. To ask is already to know that. Unfortunately, designing wheelchairs is less well paid, so you have to decide how much your moral integrity is worth to you, and whether you want to sell it at any price.

Is designing military equipment, like jets and artillery, as an engineer morally just? — The scientific philosopher

It's the use of military equipment, not its design, which has ethical implications. In other words, military equipment may be used for moral or immoral purposes (cf., Just War Theory).

Obviously not. To ask is already to know that. Unfortunately, designing wheelchairs is less well paid, so you have to decide how much your moral integrity is worth to you, and whether you want to sell it at any price. — unenlightened

And is it also obvious that service in the military is immoral?

Why are you asking. You know the answer.
A life devoted to killing people? Are you kidding?
The majority of people you will be responsible for killing shall be non combatants, including children.

And is it also obvious that service in the military is immoral? — Hanover

When you are asking, clearly not. Because that is what we call a rhetorical question.

IF you design military equipment strictly according to orders, and are loathe to measure the moral implications of your work, then you may end up being engaged in plainly immoral work, let's say for example, designing a weapon to disperse the small-pox virus as a biological weapon. How about nuclear bombs? Had you the opportunity, would you have deemed working on the atomic bomb a moral activity? (Some of the people who did critical work certainly had second thoughts about it.)

It depends on the circumstances of the times. The Americans' Norden Bomb Site (see picture below) improved the accuracy of bombing during WWII. Presumably more bombs exploded on the targets and fewer bombs exploded on houses. The Norden Bomb Site would seem like a moral device.



Antipersonnel devices like bombs which explode above ground and blast flesh-destroying shrapnel into the bodies of whoever happens to be in the vicinity, or antipersonnel land mines which is a weapon that keeps on blowing people up for decades after they are put in place and forgotten, both seem to be immoral because these weapons can not be used with any precision.

Just because you start doing military work doesn't mean that you have to continue doing it, no matter what.

I assume you don't subscribe to the view that all use of military equipment is unjust, or you would not be asking the question. There is a philosophically credible case to be made for the use of military force in defence and in humanitarian intervention. The fact that the world's largest military powers predominantly use it for purposes other than that is very sad, but doesn't undermine the philosophical case.

For me, a key decider would be whether I was able to refuse an order to start participating in designing something that I believed was intrinsically immoral, or would mostly be used for immoral purposes. If a condition of the job was that you would be criminally liable if you refused an order, and could not resign summarily to avoid having to obey such an order, then that would be a grave risk and, for me, sufficient reason not to take the job in the first place. Such conditions apply to jobs in the actual military. You could be court-martialled and shot for refusing to participate in a war crime. But I am not aware that such conditions apply to military support services. If you were free to disobey or resign if asked to work on something you found morally unacceptable, you may find it morally reasonable to work in such a field. I have no doubt there would be secrecy provisions applying after you leave. But having to not divulge secrets, while distasteful, is a long way short of having to actively participate in planning crimes against humanity. Plus, if the secrets you learned were sufficiently abominable, you could do an Edward Snowden.

You must have some things you value, if this work is emphatic with your existing values, and you desire to do it, then yes. Stay in tune.

If you do not do the job, someone else will.

And they might do it more efficiently. And get payed well for doing it. Therefore it is your duty to take the job and make the equipment just good enough to be accepted but not to good to kill a lot of people.

Not only morally just but also urgently required. The planet is severely overpopulated.

I don't think it is a weapon shortage that is causing that.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/22/andrei-zheleznyakov-soviet-scientist-poisoned-novichok?CMP=fb_gu

Decisions regarding the use of military equipment are made by government officials and/or heads of state, not by engineering designers.

Has anyone been prosecuted for a war crime for designing military equipment? If not, and if legal codes are derived from moral codes, then military equipment design is not an activity which has ethical implications, except as follows:

1) In performing services, engineers are usually bound by a professional code of conduct which requires (among other things) a demonstration of scientific and technical competence.

2) Breaking an industrial non-disclosure agreement would invite civil litigation, and

3) The revelation of state secrets would generally be considered an act of treason.