I haven't talked to any such recruiters or entertained the thought because:

- I'm uncomfortable working for a company that has this much power over private citizens but is not even nominally accountable to said citizens.

- I'm uncomfortable with the (sadly popular) tactic of shoving ugly and disdainful things onto private contractors as a way of distancing and plausible deniability. In both the government and private contexts.

- The job market for programmers is good enough that I have the freedom to be hoity toity with my morality.

I realize full well that given how much Palantir pays, they will fill the seats they need to fill to do the work they do. The world may be on an unavoidable course to hell, but I don't need to jump out and push.

I asked them about this in an interview.

Simply put, they said that if you don't feel comfortable working on a project, you just say so, and get moved elsewhere.

> refusing the job only means someone else will take it

If he's the only person who refuses the job, yes. But the overall effect depends on how many people refuse the job. If a significant percentage of technologists with in-demand skills refuse to do a particular kind of work, it will become harder for a company to hire that kind of employee. Lots of companies in the Valley are already having trouble hiring enough skilled staff, and competing on intangibles, ranging from perceived interestingness of work to perks like gourmet lunches, is one axis they use to try to get employees.

That logic is nice, but when you have the resources Palantir will have available to them, they can afford to train people themselves if need be. Then they don't need knowledge, skills, or abilities, merely talent.

That's how the military does it after all, even in very technically demanding occupations.

> refusing the job only means someone else will take it,

Isn't that true for almost any moral stance? Should I stop being a vegetarian because someone else will eat the meat anyway?

>Isn't that true for almost any moral stance?

That part on its own is not enough. Only when: 1. someone else will do <the job> AND 2. it would be better for you to be doing <the job> than someone who takes it up then you should take it instead of them.

I understand and somewhat agree with your point, but sometimes people anticipate that, given the incentives of the job, they're unlikely to be any better than anyone else when push comes to shove (your pt 2). Think of "golden handcuffs" as one example.

This particular example doesn't apply to me, but I think I'd personally be able to rationalize a lot of selfish behavior following that logic so I try to avoid putting myself in situations where it would come up, even if both points might apply.

Yes. For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat two.

That is an argument for voluntarily joining the most despicable of organisations with the goal of fixing them from the inside. That is foolish.

>That is an argument for voluntarily joining the most despicable of organisations with the goal of fixing them from the inside.

More 'damage control' than 'fixing them', but sure, close enough. The point is, do not compare 'this job is evil, I produce -10 units of global utility' and then 'this job is good, I produce +20 units of global utility' looking only at your output. Instead, compare 'By taking this job, I will produce -10 units of global utility, instead of someone else producing -50', in which case the gain from you taking the job is +40.

I've seen that argument advanced seriously quite a few times, but it seems like a weird combination of utilitarianism taken to it's reductio ad absurdum form and the Nuremberg Defence

If asked what I chose to do with my life, I don't really want to say "I chose to commit acts of evil to order, but at least I was selective about which acts of evil, and not too competent at carrying them out"

If some number of people refuse those jobs, then their pool of potential workers is smaller, meaning they have to either pay more or settle for worse engineers. At least it's something.

Paying more may just mean they charge taxpayers more.

Well then I guess it's my moral duty to help spy on my fellow citizens so that I will save the country money.

I think you need to rethink your argument. As far as i can tell, you're essentially saying "Take this job that's against your ethics or somebody else will".

No, I'm saying "Take this job that is against your ethics and do the best thing you can, because otherwise someone who is not concerned about this job being unethical will take it, and do much more damage than you will".

You sound like Boromir.

Now that I think about it, calling it Palantir is ridiculously apt.

Time to read some Bernard Williams:

http://books.google.com/books?id=J0w3ER2fWv4C&pg=PA93 http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~cjreg/ethicsModule4.htm

From the recruiting efforts I've seen, I would be surprised if they aren't just hiring everyone who meets their criteria. Which would make your argument that "refusing the job only means someone else will take it" not a very good one.

Yes, if they're aiming to hire more people than are actually willing to work there, the argument breaks down. I doubt that's the case, but your point stands.