Are Weapons Morally Neutral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the morality of weapons and their role in society, with participants debating whether weapons themselves can be considered moral or immoral. It is argued that weapons are non-moral objects, and it is the actions of individuals that determine morality. The conversation touches on the necessity of weapons for self-defense against "evil" individuals, while also questioning the implications of creating and using weapons. Participants express that while weapons may be seen as a necessary evil for protection, they still carry inherent moral complexities. Ultimately, the debate highlights the ongoing struggle to reconcile human nature, morality, and the use of violence in society.

Are weapons inherrently immoral?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 20 22.0%
  • No.

    Votes: 64 70.3%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 4 4.4%
  • So?

    Votes: 3 3.3%

  • Total voters
    91
  • #61
CaptainQuaser said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
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.
 
  • #63
CaptainQuaser said:
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.
 
  • #64
Brady said:
.
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.
 
  • #65
Smurf said:
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.
 
  • #66
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?)
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K