Ethics and the SpaceX Business
Six months ago when Russia invaded Ukraine there was considerable debate about the practicality of sanctions on Putin’s regime. The discussion largely centered around whether economic sanctions would be effective and whether they would harm the nations imposing them more than they would Putin. At the time it seemed to me this was the wrong way of looking about it. The main issue as far as I was concerned was not their likely efficacy, but the ethical and moral dimension of doing business with a warmongering state. A similar issue came up frequently in the 1980s over South Africa, for example. The issue was not for me whether not buying South African oranges would end apartheid; it was about whether I personally felt morally comfortable with doing business with a racist state. Russia is not the only country or entity nowadays with whom I would feel very uncomfortable being involved, but it is one.
Ethical considerations are however often compromised by practical issues. A complete ban on Russian oil and gas imports would cause devastation in the short term, for example, so Western sanctions on Putin have concentrated elsewhere.
Individuals also make ethical decisions about what products they buy, which employers they work for, which countries they visit, and so on. These are of course private matters but people have a right to voice their opinions and argue their case.
At least an individual can decide their own position with unanimity. It’s somewhat more complicated in an organization or group as there are likely to be dissenting views. Nevertheless, I think it is good to have these discussions out in the open. That’s what should happen in a free society and in a well-run organization.
You may nor may not agree with the blog post by Arthur Loureiro about Elon Musk and SpaceX that was published here last week, but I think it raises a similar question: with whom do you feel comfortable doing business?
I suspect that I’m not alone in agreeing with Arthur’s discomfort about Elon Musk. As a matter of fact I think he’s a thoroughly nasty piece of work. Many people no doubt also felt moral discomfort at the prospect of Euclid being launched on a Soyuz spacecraft. In the end the decision will probably be based on pragmatism rather than ethics, but I think it was right for Arthur to raise the issue publicly and I am glad to have been able to make his views public via this website. There are limits and we need to discuss where those limits lie.
P.S. I am glad that the Euclid Consortium has stated aims to be as diverse and inclusive as possible. I am also aware that there are members of the Consortium who disagree with its EDI policies. I’ve observed in many organizations that those who disfavour diversity and inclusion often complain about having diversity “forced upon them”. I shall refrain from commenting further.
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
September 7, 2022 at 10:31 am
I think that you were at Sussex for a while? So, out of interest, let me ask, as you’re likely aware of the Kathleen Stock saga at Sussex.
Many students and faculty complained about diversity (of opinion) being “forced upon them”. They objected to the presence on campus of someone who disagreed with aspects of their ideology. They explicitly wanted a mono-culture where only their own ideology could be voiced. (Even though Stock’s views were more in line with those of the majority of the UK.)
As you’ll be aware, Stock was pretty much forced out of academia (and the university did little to support her). Isn’t this a real diversity and inclusion problem?
September 7, 2022 at 11:48 am
Kathleen Stock voiced her opinions. Many people found them objectionable and voiced their opinions in return. Kathleen Stock resigned.
Opinions have consequences if you express them as that will encourage those with contrary views to express theirs too.
P. S. Where is your evidence that a majority of the UK are transphobic bigots?
September 7, 2022 at 12:39 pm
They didn’t just “voice opinions”, they ostracised and harassed her (e.g. posters on campus condemning her by name), effectively not accepting her as a fellow member of the academic community. That’s the opposite of valuing “diversity and inclusion”.
All idea-systems should be open to critique. Doing so is valuable, and can only lead to improvement.
And I didn’t suggest that the majority of the UK were “transphobic bigots”, I suggested that their views were more in line with Stock’s than with those of the students and faculty who campaigned against her.
September 7, 2022 at 11:52 am
I see that my inference about your views based your pejorative use of the word “woke” in an earlier comment seems to have been accurate.
September 8, 2022 at 8:54 am
A day after my claim that Kathleen Stock was more in line with majority opinion in the UK, it seems that readers of left-leaning Prospect Magazine have just voted her “World’s top Thinker” for 2022. Is that sufficient evidence?
I interpret that vote as a plea for diversity of opinion in academia and open debate of important issues.
This contrasts with the demands for an ideological mono-culture, backed by a “no debate” stance, and the ostracisation of anyone out of line. (Including plastering Sussex campus with posters demanding that Stock be fired and expelled from academia, with the union and university doing nothing to defend her.)
Doesn’t that constrast reveal a real and important problem with diversity and inclusion in academia today?
That’s why I replied to Loureiro’s letter. It amounted to saying that *any* of the attitudes/opinions mentioned or linked to (many of them innocuous and mainstream) are sufficient grounds for someone’s ostracisation from science.
September 8, 2022 at 9:01 am
Your comments seem somewhat repetitive.
Can you please give me an example of someone who has been ostracised from science because of their opinions?
September 8, 2022 at 9:26 am
Apologies for repetition (the Prospect Magazine vote popping up on Twitter promoted me to add that).
STEM is more resistent to ostracisation of “wrong” opinions than much of acadamia, being more rooted in reality, but examples are Colin Wright and Bo Wineguard. There are many more examples of attempts to shut down debate by declaring it unacceptable, including the reactions to Dorian Abbot, to Tomas Hudlicky, and the Royal Society of New Zealand reaction to Garth Cooper and others for a letter on the nature of science. One could give many more examples.
September 8, 2022 at 10:05 am
The only person I’ve ever heard describe Prospect as “left-leaning” was Roger Scruton, compared to whom almost everyone was on the left. It’s also a magazine with a relatively small circulation so a poll of its readers is hardly representative of anything.
The only person in the list that I’ve heard of before is Colin Wright, who left academia after a PhD and one postdoctoral position to pursue an easier and more lucrative career pandering to bigots in the media.
September 8, 2022 at 10:10 am
PS. The latest YouGov survey I saw demonstrates that a majority of the UK public thinks that people should be able to change their gender and that discrimination and hostility towards transgender people is a significant problem in the UK.
I’m with the majority view.
September 8, 2022 at 10:27 am
Colin Wright left academia when it was clear he was being shunned over his stated views, and as a result had no prospect of an academic career. Making a living as a freelance writer is not necessarily easier and more lucrative, it’s quite hard, few succeed. And labelling a position that you disagree with “hateful” and “bigoted” doesn’t make it so.
Lastly, nothing in your last reply conflicts with Colin Wright’s or Kathleen Stock’s views. This can be summarised as:
Everyone should be free to live whatever gender role (that’s “gender”) they wish, free from hostility or discrimination. Really, nowadays, nearly everyone is fine with that.
But the above doesn’t change the fact that biological sex is real and (in humans) is immutable, and in some situations is more pertinent than gender. An example is sport, where the majority opinion is that sport should be segregated by sex (for clearly real biological reasons) not by gender.
I suggest that the above is pretty much the majority view.
September 8, 2022 at 1:27 pm
There are both ontological and epistemological questions. The ontological question is whether people with penises should, for instance, be permitted to go to women’s prisons rather than men’s prisons simply upon declaring themselves female. The regime in women’s prisons is easier and I believe that rapes have been perpetrated there by such people. Then there is the question of women’s sport. Caitlyn Jenner, who as Bruce Jenner won the Olympic decathlon, is against letting persons born male into women’s sport, saying (on 1st May 2021) “It’s an issue of fairness and we need to protect girls’ sports in our schools.” Jenner should know.
The epistemological question is a further matter. If someone with a penis since birth and XY genome says “I am a woman”, my response is to ask: “What is your definition of a woman?” I would, moreover, be asking in good faith, not as a rhetorical tactic, i.e. I don’t know the answer and I want to know it. Until I have that answer I can say no more on the subject to that particular person. But society does need pronouns that relate to appearance, not private conversations. If I am asked who was the last person I saw in a room and I reply “Someone with a beard”, ought I not to refer to that person subsequently as “he” by default – “He left through that door”?