Are weapons inherrently immoral?

[0TheSwerve0]

Is the brain a weapon, can it be immoral? are actions only immoral or just thoughts? Isn't a weapon just the manifestation of something the brain thought up?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Or in other words, "Guns don't kill people; People kill people."

this is why i said no, in a perfect world we would not need weapons, but that does not make them evil

 

[GeD]

ASSUMING (big assumption here imo) that good and evil exist in the first place, guns are not evil, but they COULD be evil enhancing.

 

[Pengwuino]

Put an AK in the hands of a mass murderer. The mass murderer is evil. The AK is a collection of pieces of metals and woods. A mass murderer could kill a thousand people using a piece of a fence... whos the evil party?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Are weapons inherently immoral?

I think it must depend in part on who you ask. I'm not sure the question would even make sense to some people, like maybe Aias

So is the consensus that only something with a conscience can be good or evil? What about the usage of the word evil? It can describe objects too, or at least their purposes and effects. I guess my question is then, can an object's design/purpose be separate from its being/identity? If you say a weapon isn't evil because metal or wood isn't evil, then are you talking about the same thing or 2 different things? Is there nothing intangible that makes up a part of identity?

 

[GeD]

I think it must depend in part on who you ask. I'm not sure the question would even make sense to some people, like maybe Aias

So is the consensus that only something with a conscience can be good or evil? What about the usage of the word evil? It can describe objects too, or at least their purposes and effects. I guess my question is then, can an object's design/purpose be separate from its being/identity? If you say a weapon isn't evil because metal or wood isn't evil, then are you talking about the same thing or 2 different things? Is there nothing intangible that makes up a part of identity?

No, if something was made to kill, it has no bearing on that thing being evil or not (even if we assume that good and evil exist). But bear in mind - weapons are designed to hurt or kill. That means that the only reason someone could think of weapons as evil, is if they say that hurting or killing is evil. So if the act of injury or killing is the culprit, why are tools being blamed for it? It seems to me that weapons being evil is only a fruity conclusion.

The reason we keep weapons of societies is to lessen the temptation of using weapons and/or lessen the damage caused by fights and assaults (there may be other reasons, but these are the more practical ones). Weapons are not taken away because daddy and mommy sent them to their room for being a bad boy. We do not put guns in cells and jails for being a bad boy.

 

[nmondal]

Not necessarily.
Weapons are immoral to Gandhi like guys who never understood that if we did not use weapons, we never stayed alive.

We are not MORAL Artifical Intelligence, we are Descent Logical Human.

 

[mtngoblin2000]

I own a large caliber rifle. Tomorrow I can either go out and kill a deer to feed my family or I can go out and kill someone. The rifle does not have a choice, I do. Weapons have always existed and they always will. Although our weapons may change it's apperance from century to century they will always be neccesary for our everyday lives. Even if we lived in a completely peacefull world we would need wepons to exist. It's how we use our wepons and against who that defines our moral state. I post this question. If you came upon a man who was in the process of raping and murdering a child would you see it fit to use a weapon to stop them or would you rather just walk away to stay morally good?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It's a tough one, but I voted no. First, you have to define a weapon. If you see a gun lying on the ground, you would say that was a weapon. if you see a branch or a rock lying on the ground, you would not. If someone picks up the branch or rock and smites you over the head with it though, you would say that someone has used it as a weapon. Yet the gun is a weapon whether or not it is used.

A weapon is not an object alone. It must be an object that is either specifically constructed or utilised as a weapon, even if the act is not performed. A weapon is defined by intent.

So is an object made or gathered with intent to cause physical harm immoral? At first I thought yes, then no, then I had lunch. Mexican chicken sandwich. Very nice. There were other kinds of chicken sandwich, and that made me think.

There are different kinds if moral codes. Societies (be they countries or organisations) have moral codes that inform their ethics. Different societies have different moral codes, therefore when the same event occurs within two different societies, the moral implications may differ. It is difficult to say, then, that something can be inherently moral or immoral.

Likewise different people, even within the same society, have different morals and these tend to advise their personal ethics, though who doesn't enjoy the occassional immoral act... Oh, just me then.

We already know that some people (the NRA, for instance) believe guns are morally good, or at least pretend to to serve their selfish desires to exert power and intimidation to make up for their small penises :tongue: . Others (pro-control/ban lobbies) believe they are immoral. There seems no absolute moral truth on any level.

Except... development. Developing countries morally converge, not totally, but significantly. Most countries, as they develop, choose to change their society's moral and ethical codes, such as ending execution, legalising abortion, legalising gay civil partnerships, banning public smoking (a topical example), and, most relevantly, banning or restricting certain firearms (such as handguns in the UK).

The question is - are developing countries truly reaching for an absolute moral high ground, or do they seek to comply with existing but arbitrary moral paradigms for other, unrelated benefits? If the latter, does it make a difference? Can the absolute moral truth simply be that which by fate became the most memetically successful? Is there a real moral high ground, or is it just conformity? And why do I continue to ask for my mexican chicken sandwich on white when I'm perfectly happy with brown which is much healthier?

Edit: I initally forgot to use a smiley to denote the tongue that was in my cheek when I made my compensation jibe. Anyone who read it without: just kidding. Don't shoot!

 

[russ_watters]

I own a large caliber rifle. Tomorrow I can either go out and kill a deer to feed my family or I can go out and kill someone. The rifle does not have a choice, I do.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but a large calibre single-shot or semi-auto rifle is roughly equal in its ability to kill a deer and a human from 300 yds. What about a handgun? No, a handgun doesn't have a choice either, but it is designed to kill only humans.

 

[Smurf]

Why is killing a human immoral but killing a deer is not?

 

[mtngoblin2000]

Smurf, if you would rather kill a human for nourishment than a deer that is your choice but I think I will stick to eating deer.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

it isn't immoral to kill something for food, i thought it was immoral to kill for the pleasure of killing. is that not the difference? in the purpose?

 

[Smurf]

Just wondering why the purpose of a weapon should matter. It's still meant to kill someone or something, wether or not you approve of why doesn't really matter I would think.

 

[Antiphon]

It's also immoral to allow someone else to be killed when you could
prevent it - with a weapon or otherwise.

I say therefore NOT owning and knowing how to use a weapon is
quite likely to lead to immoral inaction by default.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's also immoral to allow someone else to be killed when you could
prevent it - with a weapon or otherwise.

I say therefore NOT owning and knowing how to use a weapon is
quite likely to lead to immoral inaction by default.

I like the way you think. Certainly if there is a gun in the house, then NOT training the children of the house in safe gun usage is morally indefensible.

And yes, since firearms greatly enhance a peaceful citizen's ability to defend themself, it is at the very least captious to resist obtaining one and learning to use it. Particularly if one lives in a large city where home attacks are more frequent.

 

[yourdadonapogostick]

weapons are not inherently immoral. i own a few sword, daggars, shuriken, knives, and such and see nothing wrong with them. they don't hurt anybody...they are just really cool pieces of metal.

 

[GaryCGibson]

Morality is a description of what ethical relations people actually have; it is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

It is interesting to consider various utopia's and distopia's formulated to rectify social troubles that are never actualized. It isn't reasonable to hold society up to moral scenarios that haven't ever been used anyplace.

Some of the 'mentors' dislike philosophical or even axiological discussions that touch upon moral issues such as are raised by people such as Jesus of Nazareth that were crucified for their ethical beliefs. Jesus of course represented what in philosophophy is known as divine command theory personified.

There are rule and act based utilitarian systems from which one might decide that weapons are immoral, yet of course even oceans are potential weapons...as the hydrogen and oxygen are explosive elements, and even the atmosphere was once conjectured to be an environment for a cobalt bomb to vaporize...anything can be weaponized, so the basic problems are more those of the social and environmental criterion in which weapons can be used adverse to general social interests.

In this era in the United States mucvh of the populace has been conditioned toward a behavorial form of sociopathy through the mass media, and have developed traits of the much maligned and misunderstood lemmings tendency toward suv'ing over the edge...one must hope they don't learn to take 12 gauges with their cases of Miller High Life on the way.

 

[hypnagogue]

Morality is a description of what ethical relations people actually have; it is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

If this were so, we wouldn't be able to evaluate the morality of a person's actions as 'right' or 'wrong.' For instance, it is a descriptive fact that some people murder others. It is a prescriptive ideal that we should not kill that causes us to label murder as an immoral act.

 

[hitssquad]

Morality is a description of what ethical relations people actually have; it is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

If this were so, we wouldn't be able to evaluate the morality of a person's actions as 'right' or 'wrong.'

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[hypnagogue]

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

If you want to be pedantic, I never specified that they were mutually exclusive in the first place.

 

[hitssquad]

Morality is a description of what ethical relations people actually have; it is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

If this were so, we wouldn't be able to evaluate the morality of a person's actions as 'right' or 'wrong.'

That seems to be a mild rephrasing of what you just quoted from GaryCGibson. What was your point?

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

People are immoral sometimes!

 

[hexhunter]

this topic hurts my brain, so I'm just going to say that i can't see how an item can be imoral...

also, on the humans or deer thing, why should killing a human be any less moral than killing a farm animal, i think infact that it is more moral to kill a human, as the farm animal is bred to die, it can't run, whatever you say about pain or 'intelligence', it is not needed, i never eat meat, i never have eaten meat, I'm still alive, and there are many people out there like me who live on a vegetarian diet without worry, there is no need anymore to take lives for food...

i remember not long ago when fox hunting was sort of banned here in the UK, a 1st class guy said something like "why ban fox hunting when millions more animals, who possesses no danger to the way's of our natural habitat's, are killed for sheer pleasure and endulgence"...

vanity is an obvious part of modern society in this respect, and it's about time we got some damn respect too...

 

[CaptainQuaser]

Two thoughts
First: Weapons are a tool of humans, I don't have claws or particularily sharp teeth. If I want meat, (moose, deer) I am going to have to use some form of weapon (gun, bow, ect) Of course there will be the crazy vegitarians out there that believe killing is wrong, that we should be in harmony with animals. Well, they are blind to the real world, animals kill each other, right now there is a million animals killing a million other animals, its the way it works. Life cannot be sustained without death, it is an intrinsic balance. I think it is far better to have respect for your prey then to have no prey.

Second: Seriously ask yourself, why is it immoral to kill people? Don't get me wrong, I would not kill another person, but I think it is important, (mostly for non-religious people, because religious people have an easy answer) but for the atheisists out there, why is it wrong to kill another person? If we just went around killing the weak, our population would be under control and the human race would be stronger as a whole. So where is the inherant evil in killing another man? (A question I had to think about in a class I took, Evil in World Religions)

 

[russ_watters]

Second: Seriously ask yourself, why is it immoral to kill people? Don't get me wrong, I would not kill another person, but I think it is important, (mostly for non-religious people, because religious people have an easy answer) but for the atheisists out there, why is it wrong to kill another person? If we just went around killing the weak, our population would be under control and the human race would be stronger as a whole. So where is the inherant evil in killing another man? (A question I had to think about in a class I took, Evil in World Religions)

The evil comes from the arbitrary-ness of deciding who gets the right to life and who doesn't.

 

[Brady]

It's not immoral to have a desire to protect yourself, your family, and your property. It is immoral (obviously), however, to buy weapons for the purpose of bullying and destruction. The morality of weapons lies entirely within the morality and sanity of the owner, not the potential destructiveness.

If I buy a handgun to protect myself, that's not immoral. If I buy a handgun to murder my neighbor, then that's immoral. If I buy an AK-47 for protection, that's not immoral, etc.

Morality in terms of weapons isn't defined as the destructive power of the weapon, it changes with the reasons of the owner for owning that weapon.

Obviously, this is all common sense, (which is growing rarer by every passing moment). There's really no need to question whether guns are moral or not. They're not alive, and it's up to us to use them responsibly.

 

[Brady]

Two thoughts
First: Weapons are a tool of humans, I don't have claws or particularily sharp teeth. If I want meat, (moose, deer) I am going to have to use some form of weapon (gun, bow, ect) Of course there will be the crazy vegitarians out there that believe killing is wrong, that we should be in harmony with animals. Well, they are blind to the real world, animals kill each other, right now there is a million animals killing a million other animals, its the way it works. Life cannot be sustained without death, it is an intrinsic balance. I think it is far better to have respect for your prey then to have no prey.

Second: Seriously ask yourself, why is it immoral to kill people? Don't get me wrong, I would not kill another person, but I think it is important, (mostly for non-religious people, because religious people have an easy answer) but for the atheisists out there, why is it wrong to kill another person? If we just went around killing the weak, our population would be under control and the human race would be stronger as a whole. So where is the inherant evil in killing another man? (A question I had to think about in a class I took, Evil in World Religions)

I'm a Christian, but I think you're being unreasonable toward athiests. Athiests aren't immoral or moral by nature. They have morals, just like everyone else, and they obviously feel like it is immoral to kill another (it's a common sense thing, come on). We need to stop questioning morality and do what common sense dictates. Who thinks it's right to kill someone else? Only the most ruthless, which are a vanishingly small part of the population.

Basically, everyone has a right to be alive, and killing that person violates their rights.

 

[Antiphon]

.
If I buy a handgun to protect myself, that's not immoral. If I buy a handgun to murder my neighbor, then that's immoral. If I buy an AK-47 for protection, that's not immoral, etc.

Clarity here- Buying the gun was not immoral even if you do it
to kill your neighbor. It's killing your neighbor that's immoral.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Just wondering why the purpose of a weapon should matter. It's still meant to kill someone or something, wether or not you approve of why doesn't really matter I would think.

If the government passed a law to allow women the power to beat men without repurcussions, is that law the same as a weapon? Can you not construct laws as weapons? If so, since we might say that law is immoral than it is a weapon that is immoral.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

No, simply because weapons aren't evil, they are not made for bad use (though most of the time they end up like that).

For instance a weapon can be used to save a life in a moral way (like shooting some rope to save someone or shooting a door to escape?)