Are Weapons Morally Neutral?

[russ_watters]

Yes, its vague, but its an almost exact quote and (in my perception) a common view. My opinion (and discussion) to follow...

 

[Aquamarine]

I would say that there is a small part of the population that is "evil". Psychopaths would be included here. And other people prepared to use violence to gain what they want. So weapons are necessary for the "good" people.

 

[DaVinci]

I too cast my vote for no.

I consistant wonder where the line is between human nature and animalistic tendancies. Are we not but animals ourselves? You could argue the soul aspect but in the end, it still doesn't make a difference. You could argue the reason and logic aspect, but that too will degrade to showing that, in some way, we all have it.

To that extend, humans, at least the normal ones , do not have sharp teeth, claws, ect. In the animal world, the creatures there do and they use those to maintain their control over other creates. This is "Natural Instinct".

Through out history, mankind, another form of animal, has developed weapons. It started with stones and sticks, progressed through martial arts and non-powered weapons, and is still continuing today.

We use those weapons to control other creates in our world.

The use and possession of weapons is "Natural Instinct". If we didnt have them, we would simply kick, punch, and bite.

With or without them, nothing would be any different... only the method that we would use to impose control on others.

 

[SabbiS]

Well, I think weapons in the hands of a few "evil" individuals will destroy more than weapons in more than a few "good" individuals would do good...
In todays society I can't find much good to do with weapons, but its very easy to see what weapons in "bad" hands can do.

But then again as DaVinci said "With or without them, nothing would be any different... only the method that we would use to impose control on others."
The world wouldn't in anyway get rid of the "evil" just because the weapons where gone.

As regarding "natural instinct" i see that it has evolved from primitive stones to guns.
But to me it seems it started with natural instinct, but I don't see it too natural as it is today.

 

[RAD4921]

Universal morality

Outside of society one must ask whether there really is any right or wrong in the universe to answer your question. Surely from man's perspective weapons are immoral but they are part of the tools society uses. From a religious perspective, if God is a benevolent entity then surely weapons are immoral. As to why religions write about moral wars I don't know because it seems contradictory.

 

[BoulderHead]

Weapons are nonmoral. The question needs rephrasing.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

yea...its not the weapons themselves that are immoral...its the things they are used for that are...if that makes any sense.

 

[chroot]

"Morality" does not apply to inanimate objects. Actions are moral (or immoral). A weapon just is; it is, as BoulderHead said, non-moral. Only the human action in which it is used could be deemed moral or immoral.

- Warren

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[DaVinci]

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

Exactly. Now add the following:

"Without guns, people would STILL kill people."

 

[Moses]

Outside of society one must ask whether there really is any right or wrong in the universe to answer your question. Surely from man's perspective weapons are immoral but they are part of the tools society uses. From a religious perspective, if God is a benevolent entity then surely weapons are immoral. As to why religions write about moral wars I don't know because it seems contradictory.

Mmm...intersting.
Well, i saw it simply from anothe frame of refernce which will make the picture clear for me:

You have a goal to achieve..and other opposes it...you should not use violence until they will use it [so your violence now is justified] since now weapons is known by the "wrong" side ...the right side has the right to use it..

Will , we came now to the point when "the first weapons" invented where for which reason?

I do not know for sure the answer, buti guess the story is similar to the story of the Nuclear weapons: Was is moral to invent is and to use it against Japan, the enemy, in WW2?

I will not answer..cuz i am not sure..
P.S. I vote for No

 

[RAD4921]

The morality of action

"Morality" does not apply to inanimate objects. Actions are moral (or immoral). A weapon just is; it is, as BoulderHead said, non-moral. Only the human action in which it is used could be deemed moral or immoral.

- Warren

You bring up some good points but one that brings about the question if the action of creating weapons is immoral since they can be used immorally.


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.

One could ask if drinking alcohol is immoral and if so is the one who is supplying the alcohol is acting immorally (such as a liquor store owner, not Jesus Christ because I am talking about excessive drinking). Doing drugs could be seen as being immoral so would be the drug dealers supplying the substances. So is creating, selling and supplying weapons immoral as well?

 

[russ_watters]

Warren/Boulderhead, yes, I also consider it poorly worded/flawed - but the reason its worded that way is because its often said that way. Its an almost exact quote (a statement framed into a question) from another thread on this site.

Part of my reason for posting it like that is I wanted someone else to say it was poorly worded/flawed first. I didn't want to steer the conversation from the beginning.

IMO, the implications ("Guns don't kill people, people kill people") are a lot trickier than simply saying that inanimate objects can't be moral or immoral (as RAD discussed...). I'll expand tonight...

 

[AeroFunk]

I would say that there is a small part of the population that is "evil". Psychopaths would be included here. And other people prepared to use violence to gain what they want. So weapons are necessary for the "good" people.

Isn't using hurting evil people still immoral. Arguing from moral absolutes, killing people, nomatter what the circumstantances, would have to be immoral. Letting the evil people do evil may more immoral but that does not mean that using weapons to kill evil people is not immoral at all.

 

[arildno]

I see at the outset no particular reason why the regulation of guns should be less restrictive than say, the regulation of poisons.
Poisons aren't evil either, and some of them have imortant usages (which guns don't have).

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't using hurting evil people still immoral.

It depends on why.

Arguing from moral absolutes, killing people, nomatter what the circumstantances, would have to be immoral.

That's not the way absolutes work: absolutes are simply laws that always apply. For example, the absolute could be framed to allow self defense: ie 'killing is wrong except in cases of self defense' could be a moral absolute.

Regarding the initial question, my personal opinion is that objects cannot be inherrently moral or immoral. However, they still must be regulated based on their utility in enabling people to do moral/immoral deeds. Simplisticly, a .50 cal machine gun has significantly greater capacity to aid a murder-spree than a 9mm handgun, and thus is deemed too dangerous for civilians to have.

arildno's point, while not quite on topic is perfectly valid regarding gun legislation: guns have less quality/safety control requirements than most other consumer products due to their political position. That really shouldn't be.

How about some specifics now: the question I asked was taken from a statement regarding "non-lethal" weapons. Mace, tasers, and rubber bullets fall into this category. Like a lot of things not designed to kill you, if used incorrectly, these still can - consider the Boston girl killed when a rubber bullet went through her eye during a celebration for the Boston Red Sox.

And even if they don't kill you, they certainly hurt, though they are designed to cause no permanent damage. And if abused, you could still use them to commit crime. So the same criterea would apply - even if its a little greyer of a line.

Another moral issue generally not considered is the use of force itself. Police officers (and military) are not allowed to shoot a person in the leg: to do so is considered immoral for two reasons: First, its cruel to injure someone permanently (as a gunshot injury may very well be). Second, if deadly force is not required, the gun shouldn't be used at all. But this brings up another problem: when is deadly force warranted/required?:

I saw an episode of Cops last week (yeah, I know...) where a guy on crack was being tased and still drove away from cops trying to arrest him. If the non-lethal weapon fails and a criminal (or enemy soldier) is able to harm someone else, then the use of the non-lethal weapon is immoral in that situation: lethal force is required.

 

[Deeviant]

I believe that weapons in the context of modern society are basically immoral.

Just because it is not practical to ban weapons in your society for fear that other's will use weapons against you does not mean that weapons are a not immoral.

They may be a neccesary evil for some, but I still think them evil nevertheless. Which is not to say I would support any sort of attempt to get rid of them as I am one who thinks them a neccesary evil, but evil they still are.

 

[Moses]

Well, let's say X country use Y weapon "i.e nuclear weapon" immorally once, thus if Z country want to have that Y weapon to protect itself from immoral use of X counrty..here is becomes moral..nay but even a duty...

I can see here that there is a large chance of twisting word in descirbing the same thing, and we should be really careful. Furthermore, it depends from which "frame of reference" you see the weaopn, adn the user
[No body freak out at me and do not branch the thread : I found it really moral if Iran has nuclear weapons! juat by the argument above..not only Iran, but every single country in thw world..the fualt is not thiers about the bad staff of atomic weapons]

 

[Locrian]

When I found out that weapons were inherently immoral recently, I was dismayed. I took out my immoral knife and scolded it.

Bad knife. Bad! ... You are immoral! ... Baaad! ...

I wanted to rub its nose in its badness, but it doesn't have a nose, and I wasn't sure what to rub it in.

 

[arildno]

Your own nose, perhaps?

 

[Royce]

Cars kill thousands of people every year. Are they immoral and should they be banned and their makers be labeled immoral?

People jump off or bridges and buildings and they kill people when they collapse during an earthquake or burn. Should they to be banned?

In fact the Earth itself kills thousands every year by earthquakes, tornadoes hurricanes , landslides and cave ins etc. To be consistent we should then ban the Earth and label it immoral.

Living is the single largest cause of death known to man; so, I guess if we do away with living then no one will ever die again. Let's kill everybody on Earth to do way with death. Surely that must be the epitome of morality.

Come on people let's get real if even for only a moment and use our heads and common sense just a bit. Before bombs, gun, bows and arrows there was sticks and stones and before that there was hands, feet, teeth and nails and before that claws and fangs. Are these too immoral?

 

[arildno]

I think russ waters' post 16 ought to be the starting point for a serious discussion.

 

[Macgyver]

Guns, and other inanimate objects cannot immoral since they are just objects (excluding profane objects, which is another discussion all together). They are merely an outlet for the immorality inherent in a law based society (I say law based because in this case I assume ‘moral’ is law abiding.) There will always be those who rebel and oppose rules be they the social norm for moral action, or laws. You cannot just blame guns and other such weapons because they are the most common outlet for immoral actions. Is hot coffee immoral (be it decaf or regular)? No, but it can be a weapon. I saw on a show about convince store surveillance systems, someone went into a store unarmed, got coffee, and proceeded to throw it in the face of the clerk and take the money from the register once it opened. A similar robbery could be accomplished in a bookstore, just substitute the hot coffee for a heavy gold-leaf bible, and I doubt anyone would argue that the bible is immoral.

 

[Royce]

While i think that inanimate object cannot be moral or immoral I do think that the manufacture and sale of some items are obviously immoral and/or unethical. For instance to knowingly manufacture and market a know defective and dangerous item such as a car or toy is moral. Another which I think is manufacturing and selling on the open market Teflon coated bullets is unconscionable. They are made for one single purpose, to penetrate body armor and kill the one wearing it, usually a police officer.

I can see it being made and sold to police forces and military forces as more and more criminals are wearing body armor as are more potential enemy forces and terrorist. But to sell them on the open market to whoever can pay the price for the sole purpose of killing people is immoral. I am sure there are other situations and item that the manufacture and sell of is immoral. However, again, it is the people who are immoral not the bullets or items themselves.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Weapons (or the capability for forceful self-defense) are, and will be, necessary now and in any future scenario.

There may come a time when all of existence reaches a mature status and no new beings come into existence. Then maybe weapons won't be necessary. I doubt this will ever come to pass.

juju

 

[QI]

morality ... who's morality??

If we are looking at morals .. who's Morals are we looking at? Sociaty?

In the 70's England School girl outfits made everyones head turn. this was socially aceptable Now it's definitely not.

Morality is a judgement call. for the majority they will follow sociaty because they are feeble minded. For a few they will find there own reason behind there judgements.

Weapons were first used to kill aminals to eat. it was called beating the crap out of a rabit to make a stew. The weapons in this case were fists to hit and strangle the little bunny.

For me the issue of morality of anything is the reason behind it. ie A shotgun used for hunting deer is this imoral (ok to sum yes) compared to an Anti personal mine designed to kill people.

So my answer is Yes weapons CAN be imoral IF there sole purpose is to kill people (ie anti personal mines, Tanks .. Let's face it you would not take a tank to go fishing.)

For all other weapons (fists, guns, knives etc) its what they are used for. The action that actually counts.

But as an addition. An imoral weapon could be used for a moral purpose (and that's not killing bad people) a nuclear weapon could e used to protect the Earth from big stones hurtling towards us. lol

This would be a moral use of an imoral weapon.

And for the killing of bad people .. For Karmic Debt to work in the duality of life there must be Karmic Credit!


Qi

 

[selfAdjoint]

To take a current example, what do you think of this case?

Several cities in Illimois have ordinances forbidding the ownership of firearms by private citizens. Now the legislature has passed, over the Governor's veto, an act that says the use of a firearm to defend one's home or place of business will be a valid defence against prosecution under those city ordinances.

What are the moral issue of
(a) the cities,
(b) the legislature,
(c) gun owners in violation of the ordinances,
(d) using firearms in defence of home or business.

 

[russ_watters]

For me the issue of morality of anything is the reason behind it. ie A shotgun used for hunting deer is this imoral (ok to sum yes) compared to an Anti personal mine designed to kill people.

So my answer is Yes weapons CAN be imoral IF there sole purpose is to kill people (ie anti personal mines, Tanks .. Let's face it you would not take a tank to go fishing.)

Well, I'd still consider that to be a moral issue for the people who designed/built/used the weapons, but other than that, I agree: it depends on the purpose and usage of the weapon.

SA, are you sure those laws aren't against selling the weapons? Outlawing ownership seems like an obvious violation of the 2nd Amendment. Regardless, its a tough balance - the purpose of such laws is to reduce crime, but is that a reasonable trade for the ability to defend yourself? If the answer is no, the law is immoral. If the answer is yes, someone who defended his/herself in violation of the law would probably still be justified morally.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So, weapons (the physical material) are nonmoral, but what about the function? Does the function of an object have no impact on its "beingness?"

Edit: Oopsies, I see this is being touched on. Carry on.

 

[BigStelly]

Yes indeed weapons are immoral... we should put every weapon that kills someone in a prison or melt it down in a pot if its a gun or something metalic in nature. Now keep in mind that in the hands of a martial arts master a stick is a weapon so we should cut down all trees so that we can keep people from using these for destructive purposes... in fact some people's hands are considered lethal weapons. Therefore anyone's hands that can kill should be cut, rocks are weapons as well so we should throw them all out, cloth can be a weapon for strangling so we should all roam around in the buff.
OK obviously this makes no sense a weapon is just an extention of someone's body and it increases their ability to destroy. The solution is not to get rid of the weapons... that has been done... all civilians had weapons taken away in nearly every hostile dictatorship unless you were in aide of the tyrant. The bottom line is if you want to lower violence( you can't get rid of it because their will always be insane people who for some reason decide to kill) you should educate people about the problems violent solutions bring about.
Now people should not be able to use weapons that allow them to kill massive ammounts of people in their homes... ie automatic weapons rocket launchers etc... but as far as handguns or rifles or shotguns go... there shouldn't really be much of a restriction.

 

[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.