IBM Culpability Essay
IBM has been associated with unethical business perspectives ever since its involvement in the Holocaust, but is IBM, International Business Machine, really responsible for the Nazi’s genocide of the Jews? I’d have to say on a scale from one to ten, IBM is only ranking a mere three in culpability. It is true; IBM should have looked into what the Third Reich was doing with their technology--if for nothing else, at least for protection of their patent—but, even so, they never formally reconciled to the extermination of the Jewish race as the Nazis had. It is clear they had an affiliation to Nazi Germany, but their relationship with the subsequently discovered nefarious nation was strictly “business as usual”, just like many other companies world wide. What business wouldn’t have done the same thing in IBM’s shoes? Though IBM is responsible for themselves, just as any other person or organization, does that really constitute handing a substantial blame to them for the holocaust?
Aside from the fact that there has “not been a single sentence written by IBM personnel that has been discovered in any documents questioning the morality of automating the Third Reich, even when headlines proclaimed the mass murder of Jews”, even if they had known of the repugnant acts of the Nazis in power, IBM shouldn’t be responsible for how a client uses their product, regardless of ethical and moral attachments. I assume there is a certain degree of responsibility a business has for their product or service. Businesses must examine and investigate the use of their product in many instances—assuring no damage is acquired to their product during a lease situation or confirming their patent isn’t being violated—but this is only to assure their own monetary gain and maintain or raise their financial stability, nothing more. IBM has no reason to look into how their product is being used; whether malevolently or hospitably, their culpability can’t be derived from the product alone. For example, when a car company leases their car to an individual and that individual is a very malevolent reprobate and uses the vehicle for a drive by, does that consummate that the car company is running an unethical business?
“Business as usual”; a phrase that is commonplace among businesses internationally. IBM clearly wanted to make money, just as any other business does. The sole purpose of a business is to make money. And to think they had some preference of what the Nazis were going to do with their technology is foolish. IBM leased the Germany their machines to make more money off them. “There was no universal punch card at that time”, which means IBM made specific punch cards for Germany. Every different kind of card and the more cards Germany wanted meant more monetary gain. They even produced a factory in Endicott to be able to sell more, faster. Demand was high, and IBM was the one who wanted to supply it all, exclusively. If they hadn’t met the German’s demand for their technology and punch cards, you bet Germany would’ve made arrangements with opposing companies.
As I have previously stated, what business wouldn’t have done the same thing were they in IBM’s shoes? Even Mr. Black said “many American businesses did what IBM did.” Businesses “refused to walk away from the extraordinary profits obtainable from trading with a pariah state such as Nazi Germany.” I candidly believe that any business would have supplied Nazi Germany was equipment or arms or punch cards and machines; it doesn’t matter what they sold. What matters to businesses is money, and there’s nothing other reason to be a business aside from monetary gain. “Mr. Black’s case is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done.”
We’ve established that IBM is a business, but there is nothing that says anywhere that a business is restricted by morality. IBM is not culpable for the actions of Nazi Germany. I sustain the belief that any business would have done what IBM has, and, aside from the international war situation, it doesn’t differ from any other business. And for someone to say IBM wanted to kill Jews and reconcile with the Nazi belief without empirical evidence is preposterous. It was a choice for IBM to sell to Nazi Germany during WWII, but it was a seemingly good choice at the time for IBM. “The passage of time makes that choice a good deal clearer not than it was when Watson had to make it.”
Aside from the fact that there has “not been a single sentence written by IBM personnel that has been discovered in any documents questioning the morality of automating the Third Reich, even when headlines proclaimed the mass murder of Jews”, even if they had known of the repugnant acts of the Nazis in power, IBM shouldn’t be responsible for how a client uses their product, regardless of ethical and moral attachments. I assume there is a certain degree of responsibility a business has for their product or service. Businesses must examine and investigate the use of their product in many instances—assuring no damage is acquired to their product during a lease situation or confirming their patent isn’t being violated—but this is only to assure their own monetary gain and maintain or raise their financial stability, nothing more. IBM has no reason to look into how their product is being used; whether malevolently or hospitably, their culpability can’t be derived from the product alone. For example, when a car company leases their car to an individual and that individual is a very malevolent reprobate and uses the vehicle for a drive by, does that consummate that the car company is running an unethical business?
“Business as usual”; a phrase that is commonplace among businesses internationally. IBM clearly wanted to make money, just as any other business does. The sole purpose of a business is to make money. And to think they had some preference of what the Nazis were going to do with their technology is foolish. IBM leased the Germany their machines to make more money off them. “There was no universal punch card at that time”, which means IBM made specific punch cards for Germany. Every different kind of card and the more cards Germany wanted meant more monetary gain. They even produced a factory in Endicott to be able to sell more, faster. Demand was high, and IBM was the one who wanted to supply it all, exclusively. If they hadn’t met the German’s demand for their technology and punch cards, you bet Germany would’ve made arrangements with opposing companies.
As I have previously stated, what business wouldn’t have done the same thing were they in IBM’s shoes? Even Mr. Black said “many American businesses did what IBM did.” Businesses “refused to walk away from the extraordinary profits obtainable from trading with a pariah state such as Nazi Germany.” I candidly believe that any business would have supplied Nazi Germany was equipment or arms or punch cards and machines; it doesn’t matter what they sold. What matters to businesses is money, and there’s nothing other reason to be a business aside from monetary gain. “Mr. Black’s case is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done.”
We’ve established that IBM is a business, but there is nothing that says anywhere that a business is restricted by morality. IBM is not culpable for the actions of Nazi Germany. I sustain the belief that any business would have done what IBM has, and, aside from the international war situation, it doesn’t differ from any other business. And for someone to say IBM wanted to kill Jews and reconcile with the Nazi belief without empirical evidence is preposterous. It was a choice for IBM to sell to Nazi Germany during WWII, but it was a seemingly good choice at the time for IBM. “The passage of time makes that choice a good deal clearer not than it was when Watson had to make it.”
posted by Orion M Malhotra at 10:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home