Kind of disagree. Employees, whatever their rank (except maybe at the very top) cannot be help responsible for doing their job because of the very simple fact that the purpose of a company is to maximize shareholders values.
It's up to the government (meaning us) to make sure that there are guardrails so this search for profit do not negatively impact society.
And this is exactly what the government is doing with this lawsuit.
A long time ago, when I was doing my mandatory military service, we were told about situations where we were not allowed to follow the orders of our superiors. Even in the military, we were expected to think for ourselves, make our own decisions, and take responsibility for our actions.
Employees are human beings and not property of their employers. As long as you are responsible for your actions outside work, you are also responsible while at work.
I understand your point and yes, personal responsibility is important and in the military, where people are not easily replaceable in the heat of action, especially in times of war, your point is absolutely valid. But what would have happen in that case if Jerry or Anil had quit in protest? Some other dude would have taken their place.
People will act based on ethical standards that are derived from their cultural environment. Since the 70s/80s, the American society (and more generally the entire developed world) has been reorganized around ultra-liberal Chicago style view of the economy and especially the Friedman doctrine [0]. It is impossible (or comes with incredible personal cost) for an individual to go against the cultural grain. In this context, personal responsibility can never be a proper substitution to our collective responsibility as citizens.
The silly notion of the heroic individual fighting against corruption, evil doing or whatnot is dangerous. Everyone of us is responsible for the world we live in, not Jerry in marketing. The law that we indirectly vote for and the one who enforce them on our behalf are the only true and meaningful weapons against our societies decadence.
And these actions against Google and Amazon will show were we stand in that fight.
> But what would have happen in that case if Jerry or Anil had quit in protest? Some other dude would have taken their place.
And those other people would be just as responsible if they fail to refuse.
> It is not true that science marches on in defiance of human will, independent of human will, that just is not the case. But it is comfortable, as I said: it leads to the position that "if I don't do it, someone else will."
> Of course if one takes that as an ethical principle then obviously it can serve as a license to do anything at all. "People will be murdered; if I don't do it, someone else will." "Women will be raped; if I don't do it, someone else will."
Have you ever voted in an election? That's basically the same situation. Voting is almost certainly waste of time, because a single vote is very unlikely to matter.
You don't make the right choice with the expectation that it will change anything, but because it's the right thing to do. If you are not willing to make the right choice if may cost you something, you have no right to expect that anyone will do it in any situation. If you are not willing to do that, you choose to believe in a society where everyone is a selfish asshole. In a society like that, there is no such thing as our collective responsibility as citizens.
I have voted in every election I had the opportunity to vote, including union election. And yes I think it matters. But democracy is not just about the procedural token of the election. I am also engaged in my union and in my local town council (and should probably do more).
And there is a wide range of possible actions between being a hero (which is for me the definition of great personal sacrifice for the common good) and a "selfish asshole". I am a realist and don't expect everyone to be a hero. In fact, I expect no one to be hero. I don't want anyone to have to suffer for doing the right thing, that is why I believe in collective action because I don't think personal solution are useful against systematic problems.
But by the tone of your comment, I don't think we are communicating on the same level. So let's agree to disagree and have a very good day.
It's up to the government (meaning us) to make sure that there are guardrails so this search for profit do not negatively impact society.
And this is exactly what the government is doing with this lawsuit.