Are Weapons Morally Neutral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the moral status of weapons, exploring whether they can be considered morally neutral or if their use inherently carries moral implications. Participants examine the relationship between human nature, societal constructs, and the role of weapons in conflict, touching on philosophical, ethical, and historical perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that weapons are nonmoral, suggesting that morality applies only to human actions rather than inanimate objects.
  • Others contend that the use of weapons can be justified in certain contexts, such as self-defense against "evil" individuals, raising questions about the morality of such actions.
  • A viewpoint is presented that the creation and supply of weapons may also carry moral implications, particularly if they can be used for harm.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the notion of universal morality, questioning whether right or wrong exists outside societal constructs.
  • There is a discussion about the evolution of weapons from primitive tools to modern firearms, with some suggesting that this evolution reflects a natural instinct for control.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of the phrase "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," with participants noting that this oversimplifies the moral complexities involved.
  • Some participants propose that the regulation of weapons should be more stringent, comparing them to poisons, which also have important uses but are regulated due to their potential for harm.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the moral status of weapons. Multiple competing views remain, with some asserting that weapons are morally neutral while others argue that their use and creation can carry moral weight.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions of morality and the implications of actions associated with weapons. The discussion reflects a range of philosophical perspectives without resolving the underlying questions.

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 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K