Moral and Ethical aspects of creating guns?

[DontBurnMyFlag]

Hey all,

Bear with me while I try to get this question typed out without hacking it to bits of undecipherable pieces. I hold no moral or ethical problems with guns or their creators. Im just throwing that out there now while i form the question. So anyway.

A question came up the other day and Im curious as to your thoughts and beliefs. Are there any moral or ethical boundaries to creating a gun or device capable of taking another life? Or does the blame fall souly on the person using said device?

Its almost the same argument, as guns dont kill people, people kill people. But Im looking for a more in depth perspective.

Say you invent a new type of bullet capable of causing more harm to human tissue than any of the other rounds available. In your religion or belief system, would you be morally responsible for the deaths caused by that round? would you feel responsible?

It doesnt stop at guns though either. What if you worked for a defense contractor and created some new form of chemical weapon. Would you be hailed as a sinner or a saint?

Im just curious. I have no qualms with anyone who creates weapons for the greater good, and it is my belief that the responsibility falls on the trigger puller.

Your input would be most interesting.

 

[cnorman18]

guns are tools

Guns are tools. Designing or manufacturing a tool that does its job more efficiently is a good thing.

If a criminal needs to be stopped, a bullet that stops him faster or more surely is a good thing. If an army is at war, a weapon that defeats the enemy more efficiently is a good thing.

Blaming the designer or the manufacturer for the criminal misuse of a legal weapon makes no more sense than blaming the designer or manufacturer of a nail gun when it is used to build a whorehouse instead of a church.

 

[Walkalong]

Was dropping the bomb wrong? It saved untold number of lives in the long run.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

The moral value is in the application, not the creation. Anything can be used for good or for evil, firearms are the same.

 

[K3]

Interesting to note that many types of weapons of war were outlawed early in the 20th century. Check me on the date, but I believe before or during WWI that bayonets with serrations were outlawed.

 

[browningguy]

Actually you can't get too deep because it's a very simple answer. There is no moral or ethical problems with creating weapons. I used to specialize in high energy devices and delivery platforms back in the day, before the USSR gave up, so that may skew my beliefs.

I can't see how giving someone the opportunity to defend themselves could be morally or ethically wrong. There are some people who don't believe in defending themselves, but they are just nuts so no need to concern ourselves with them.

 

[ilbob]

Inanimate objects have no moral or ethical nature to them. Only human beings possess the ability to determine right from wrong.

You might have some moral or ethical need to restrict just who you let have access to some things.

 

[hopkin]

I believe it's the end user who is morally responsible for that use, not the maker.

The maker IS responsible for ensuring a faulty product isn't claimed as a working one. It's the same for guns as it is for cars, medicine and so on.

In my opinion the person marketing a gun has a moral responsibility not to encourage illegal, reckless or abusive behaviour. I once saw a South American ad where the text was something like "never be trifled with". That seemed an odd way of marketing a pistol.

 

[Mark_from_Iowa]

If you create a weapon that is capable of taking life, you still bear no moral or ethical responsibility for its use by a third party.

However, if you build a bomb in your living room and blow up your family accidentally, you are morally and ethically responsible for their deaths. (negligence)

If you build a bomb, put it in your neighbor's driveway, and blow him up, then you are responsible for his murder.

Moral culpability does not follow design; moral culpability follows action.

 

[Deanimator]

If you give food away at a soup kitchen, are you responsible for the murder committed by a killer who didn't starve to death because he ate your food?

 

[Deanimator]

Inanimate objects have no moral or ethical nature to them.

Whenever I see some anti-gun ninny babble about the "evil" of guns, I ask him if he worships rocks and trees. When he asks why I ask that, I say, "Well you obviously believe that inanimate objects have agency. I just figured you were some kind of primitive animist."

They usually don't like that.

 

[ArmedBear]

If there's a bullet that will work better, SOMEONE will invent it.

Maybe it will be someone who will sell it to our worst enemies.

Better that we have it first.

The arms race is real, and has always been real. Matchlocks beat spears, bows beat lances. "Stopping the arms race" unilaterally just means handing the victory to someone else. That "someone else" can be a Pol Pot, a Hitler, a Stalin.

If you can think of a bullet that will be more deadly, you are morally obligated to make it and sell it to the "good guys" because if you don't do that, someone else will invent it anyway, and they might be on the side of Al Qaeda, or whoever the boogieman du jour is. There's always someone nasty out there; the world is never a perfect, peaceful place, no matter how many flowers people put in their hair.

Then just pray the bullet need never be used. And understand that this is a futile prayer.

That's the real world, and it's not what the hippies want it to be.

 

[Stump Water]

No. And, No.

I wonder how Alfred Nobel would have answered.

 

[Zundfolge]

For every life unjustly taken by someone using a gun, there are at least 3 lives saved (which sometimes involves the taking of a life as well).

I for one would be proud to contribute to the overall much greater good that firearms do to society than the bad.


Honestly, car makers have a lot more innocent blood on their hands.

 

[nezumi]

Alright, I'll be the black sheep.

YES. When you commit an action, you must not think solely of the direct effects of it, but of the potential indirect effects as well. In other words, if you design a weapon, you have a moral responsibility to enact appropriate safety measures to prevent misuse, just like if you dig a pit, you need to put up measures to prevent people from falling in, if you buy a pet tiger you need to keep it in a cage and so on.

The question at this point is really, 'what is an appropriate safety measure'? That is a difficult question to answer. Let us suppose you make a better gun or a better bullet, since that's what this topic is about. In fact, let us suppose, for a specific case, you make an actual armor piercing round. In that case you must weigh the good of this being available to law-abiding citizens against the bad of it being in the hands of criminals, and also against the bad of it solely being in the hands of the government but NOT the people. It's a complex measurement, and in that case, it's really balanced enough that there is no obvious answer. If you could make these bullets with some sort of safety feature, perhaps it only works using a custom gun and you control the flow of those guns so bad guys can't use them, you may partially alleviate the problem (but of course, at another cost).

If, on the other hand, you successfully made a new version of smallpox for which there is no cure or vaccine, it can be pretty easily argued that releasing it to the general public is a very, very bad idea, because while the public has a right to be able to defend itself, the sheer magnitude of damage caused by a simple mistake means the downside of this smallpox virus far outweighs its benefits. If you designed it and kept it around the house in an unsafe manner, or sold it to your next door neighbor, you WOULD be ethically responsible for its later misuse.


Ultimately though, the burden sits on the final actor, not on those people who enabled him. You'll won't be as responsible for deaths as the bad guy who releases it on the public. But you will still share responsibility.

 

[JKimball]

In your religion or belief system, would you be morally responsible for the deaths caused by that round?

Not in my religion.

I like to think that John Moses Browning was inspired by the Book of Mormon:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/5

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/9

16 And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows, with swords, and with cimeters, and with clubs, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons which we could invent, and I and my people did go forth against the Lamanites to battle.
Mosiah 9:17
17 Yea, in the strength of the Lord did we go forth to battle against the Lamanites; for I and my people did cry mightily to the Lord that he would deliver us out of the hands of our enemies, for we were awakened to a remembrance of the deliverance of our fathers.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jarom/1

8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war--yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/10

27 And they did make all manner of weapons of war. And they did work all manner of work of exceedingly curious workmanship.
Ether 10:28
28 And never could be a people more blessed than were they, and more prospered by the hand of the Lord. And they were in a land that was choice above all lands, for the Lord had spoken it.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/2

12 Therefore the people of the Nephites were aware of the intent of the Amlicites, and therefore they did prepare to meet them; yea, they did arm themselves with swords, and with cimeters, and with bows, and with arrows, and with stones, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons of war, of every kind.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/46

11 And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalickiah.
Alma 46:12
12 And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it--In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children--and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.
Alma 46:13
13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land--

Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet , p.104
"Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward." Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ, was not a pacifist. Yes, his voice was always for peace. But read Doctrine and Covenants section 98. "It may be," he said, "that the Saints will have to beat their plows into swords, for it will not do for men to sit down patiently and see their children destroyed." The Prophet felt, and said elsewhere, that one thing uglier than war is cowardice and the refusal to stand for one's own loved ones in the breach.

 

[Seancass]

Ask Alfred Nobel the about the distinction between a tool, its maker, and the end user.

 

[Seancass]

stupid intranet.

 

[akodo]

Didn't both Gatlin and Maxim invent their 'machine guns' with the idea that those weapons were so devastating that no one would ever wage warfare again?

As others have said. A tool is a tool, a human being is a moral creature. The human takes the blame for the action, not the tool. The tool, being blameless, cannot pass any blame onto it's creator.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Did Henry Ford go to hell for the "Model T".

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

Wow, I did not expect so many responses. Im glad to see everyone has a level head, but I expected as much.

These are pretty much the same answers and arguments I gave in the discussion the other day. Just always good to see others thinkin em too.

 

[cnorman18]

JKimball:

What's a "cimeter"?

 

[cnorman18]

JKimball:

What's a "cimeter"? Is that an alternate spelling of "scimitar"?

 

[Crunker1337]

Well, if you're creating it for defense of something moral, then it is a moral action. If you're making it solely for a profit or for something immoral, then that's obviously immoral. If you allow, through inaction or ignorance, for your weapons to fall into the hands of criminals, terrorists, or irresponsible governments, then that is immoral. If you create it for defense and you're unable to keep some of them from falling into the wrong hands, then you accept that you're not perfect and can't keep track of every firearm ever made.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Well, if you're creating it for defense of something moral, then it is a moral action. If you're making it solely for a profit or for something immoral, then that's obviously immoral. If you allow, through inaction or ignorance, for your weapons to fall into the hands of criminals, terrorists, or irresponsible governments, then that is immoral. If you create it for defense and you're unable to keep some of them from falling into the wrong hands, then you accept that you're not perfect and can't keep track of every firearm ever made.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Make whatever you want to and use it as you see fit. In the end it is simply just a tool.