Are Weapons Morally Neutral?

[Francis M]

I posted as a maybe. Touched on earlier, I don't think the weapon is immoral, sometimes I don't even think the idea is immoral, it's the use if the idea or the intent behind it that's immoral.

During the construction of the first atomic bomb at Los Alamos the scientist asked if what they were working on was immoral. Alfred Noble who is famous for taming nitrates formed the Noble Peace Prize because of his guilt for contributing to the efficency of killing with his new invention.

Nobel's invention also helped out in construction. Should he have felt guilty about that?

I've heard that after the atomic bomb was constructed that there were some pretty heated and angushing arguments within the Roosevelt and then Truman cabinet about when and if they should use it.

I heard tell that some inventors of weapons did it in the (deluded) hope that they would make wars so horrific and costly in life that no one would want to fight any more or that humanity would be a lot more apt to try diplomacy vs. war.

Where's the immorality in that idea?

 

[Hat_Man]

I voted no for one simple reason, weaons are nothing more then any other form of matter. Matter itself cannot hold morals of any kind since morals are part of the mind. What makes evil is the USE of weapons. A gun can be used to protect or to kill, it is the person holding the gun that is good or evil. Another note is that anything can be a weapon; a rock, a stick, even a wall can be a weapon. I practice an Okinawin form of martial arts and literly anything in an envirment can be used to kill, maim or to protect from said atrocities. Weapons will exist as long as there is conscious life in the universe to use matter.

 

[russ_watters]

I heard tell that some inventors of weapons did it in the (deluded) hope that they would make wars so horrific and costly in life that no one would want to fight any more or that humanity would be a lot more apt to try diplomacy vs. war.

Deluded? WWI was called "the war to end all wars," yet the next world war started a scant 12 years later. Since WWII ended almost 60 years ago, no two developed nations have gone to war with each other. Take nuclear weapons out of the equation and a world war between communist and democratic nations seems likely.

 

[Cosmo16]

I think Hat Man is right.

Weapons are not immoral because things can not be immoral. The way a thing is used and the intention behind that use is what makes an object appear immoral. But even then, it is still a the person who used it who is immoral.

 

[mapper]

If you take away weapons from the equation you find that people are killing people through fighting and brute force and strength. Then there comes a time in every species evolution where the strong survive and the weak perish. Control of personal resources through population control for survival.

Time comes in evolution where brute force and strength need to stop to favor intelligence. With intelligence comes innovation and survival. So the weak but intelligent can build weapons to assist them in their control of personal resources and thus survive. Killing more efficient every millennia. Helps control our population, resources and fear.

Eventually in a species evolution most of these trivial problems will no longer exist. Entering the space age, that eventually comes with complete independence from population and resources issues. But we still have fear and will need to use our intelligence to build better weapons to kill other intelligent species we don’t understand. (that have no doubt gone through this same process). This will probably go on for billions of years and won't stop because other species will evolve and ph33r (leet fear) you. Until you can separate yourself and everyone one in the universe from population control, resources and fear there will always be a need for bigger gun.

Here comes a time where you will become so technically advanced you become god like and don’t need any weapons. But not to say it stops there. You/god are so smart you don’t need weapons. The gods pray on other lesser evolved species and influence them in such ways that they wage war with other gods cause gods still must have feelings.. It seems they give a shiat what people think. But, can't fight other gods though… they are much to powerful and smart so they have to resort to killing off the people who believe in something else. Hurting gods feelings perhaps donno, not smart enough yet to understand this.

Weapons are not immoral they are simply eventual, evolution is immoral for giving species lack of resources, initial limited space and a brain to think they need to fear others.

 

[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 . 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)