Moral and Ethical aspects of creating guns?

[Thernlund]

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

Did it? If you are referring to its use to stop the war, that's debatable. If however you refer to later versions of "the bomb" being used as a deterrent, I would agree.

What was in the mind of the creator at the time of the creation determines whether or not he is to blame, and only he knows. I think that with any weapon we can only blame the user for the use. We aren't qualified to place blame for the creation. Only the creator can do that.


-T.

 

[only1asterisk]

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?

What are the moral or ethical boundaries to creating kitchen knifes, lengths of pipe, electricity, axes, gasoline, rocks, fire, water, bricks, rope or trees?

What are the moral or ethical consequences of creating a new human life, an autonomous intellect capacity for both unspeakable depravity and wonderful kindness?

David

 

[def4pos8]

Back in the Bad Old Days, I regularly signed receipts for "ten launch facilities with thirty mated reentry vehicles." The leaders of my church were content to state that it was OK to "kill a commie for Christ." One fine evening I was within 90 seconds of killing about 20 million "commies". Ten years later, those same churchmen, after the "evil empire" had dissolved, said that what I had done to defend them was "immoral".

The devices are equal opportunity destroyers. I have no problem using anything, including my hands, small arms or, ultimately, thermonuclear devices to defend this Republic. Anyone who has a problem with that -- including the anti-Christs posing as Bishops of The Church -- can depart to Venezuela, Iran, Syria or any other garden spot on this planet that they choose if they don't like the way that those at the "pointed end of the spear" defend them.

 

[RonE]

Guns are nothing more than the latest step in the evolution of ways to kill one another.
We had the stone age with clubs and spears and rock points then came the early metal ages (copper, iron, bronze, etc) where spear points and knives (and swords) were more effecient. Then we had the bow and arrow in Europe and the atlatral in the Americas and finally gunpowder and firearms. All used to kill our fellow men and game for food.
I hope I live to see a portable electromagnetic rail gun. What a blast that will be.
Regardless of the arguements, guns are part of the evolutionary process. Posing moral or morality questions about weapons is like asking if there is sound if noone is around to hear it. The morality is in the use, not the technology.

 

[JWarren]

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

Did it? If you are referring to its use to stop the war, that's debatable.

Uhm... no debate here.

My grandfather was drafted into WWII. He landed and was wounded on D-Day. He was later wounded in France. Somehow, he lived to see VE Day. But he had already received his orders to the Pacific Theater when the A-Bomb was dropped.

He, and a lot of other men probably owe their lives to the dropping of that bomb.

Did a lot of non-combantants die from it? Of course. So did a lot in the firebombings of Europe. And correct me if I am wrong, but both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military value to the Japanese. That makes them viable military targets.


Recently, I watched a documentary on The Military Channel that was a real eye-opener.

It seems that we were expecting such high casualties in an invasion of the Japanese home islands that we went ahead and ordered 400,000 Purple Hearts. What is amazing is that we are STILL giving out Purple Hearts from that order. That order has lasted us through Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, and every military exercise since VJ Day.

And we were planning on giving every one of those out for ONE invasion. We anticipated needing more, but that was a start.


So no... there is NO debate in my conscience as an American as to whether dropping the A-Bomb was a correct decision.


Remember, political maneuvering aside, we didn't START the war with Japan. But by God, we finished it. My best friend's uncle died on Pearl Harbor. He kinda takes it personal as well.



-- John

 

[BridgeWalker]

No, no, and no. My grandpa was in Marseilles waiting for the boat to the Pacific when the bomb was dropped. Glad it was.

But, there is an exception when the development process itself causes needless harm to innocents. A local chemical company, for example, created numerous weaponsused by many sides in many wars and other hostile actions. I don't blame them for the harm caused there. I do blame them for their negligent testing and manufacturing that harmed a lot of employees and their families.

A different, but related problem.

 

[Blackbeard]

Interesting question. Inventing a tool for killing is not itself an immoral act, since there are times when it is right and necessary to kill. I'm sure we can agree on that. Your question is, is the invention and construction of such tools immoral?

Guns and chemical weapons are both tools designed for killing. In the case of guns, they are designed for killing a single identifiable person. There is a need for this tool, albeit a limited one. Chemical and biological weapons are designed to kill indiscriminately among a popluace deemed hostile to the user. There may be a need for this type of weapon someday, but it is hard to imagine a scenario where it would be moral to use this type of weapon.

Since guns have moral uses among the general population, I don't see any immorality with improving the effectiveness of a gun, so long as it still retains its nature as a weapon of singular destruction.

Inventing a weapon of mass destruction is probably not immoral by itself either, since it is only the pursuit of scientific knowledge. That said, once the invention has been made, the inventor has a duty to use the knowledge responsibly and keep it hidden from those who may abuse it.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Did it? If you are referring to its use to stop the war, that's debatable.

The decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is debatable only by people who are both absolutely ignorant about the facts of World War II and are determined to remain ignorant despite all contemporary evidence for its clear necessity to save the lives of Americans and others who fought to end a war begun by the Japanese.

It unquestionably saved the lives of a great many ordinary Japanese too, the people who mattered not at all to their rulers. Not even the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was sufficient to deter Emperor Hirohito and the militaristic rulers of Japan from their announced policy of committing the death of every man, woman, and child in the home islands to the slaughter of invading troops. For Hirohito and the Japanese government surrender was unacceptable at any cost. They did not expect to pay the cost. That is why the second atomic bomb was dropped, on Nagasaki, to convey the impression that the bombings would continue until the Japanese surrendered. There was no third bomb but, fortunately, Hirohito did not know it.

Had the Pacific war continued the loss of human lives would have been much greater. It's obviously an interesting pastime for people who were not there to debate the decision in retrospective morality. For those of us who had family there and then, whose lives mattered to us, and who certainly would have died in an invasion of Japan the morality was clear and right. Moral debates should be reserved to the people whose blood and bones are on the line. Morality debated from the sidelines or through a telescope is worth just about what the debaters have risked. Nothing.

 

[Soybomb]

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?

How about if you make hammers, knives, cars, boots, or bricks? All of these are used to kill people. If you get blamed for making a gun used in a murder, do you get credit for making a gun used in a justifiable homicide or even drawn and not fired?

Personally I have no religion to assign responsibility, but believe that all tools can be used for good or bad, sometimes even a blurred version of the two. We've certainly seen that with nuclear weapons, where even terribly destruction and loss of human life might even still have a net positive effect on the world.

 

[Thernlund]

...to debate the decision in retrospective morality.

If you're referring to me, I didn't say anything of morality. Nor did I condemn the use of the A-bomb on Japan. It certainly did save American lives.

I was speaking strictly of hard numbers. Those bombs killed, what? 200,000 Japanese (estimated)? In July 1945 the Joint Chiefs estimated, based on Normandy fatalities (40,000) and Okinawa fatalities (50,000), that the war in Japan would claim another 40,000 to 50,000 American soldier lives in order to be won.

That's 50,000 estimated Americans lives lost. Let's be pessimistic and double that. 100,000 American lives lost.

Let's as well estimate 100,000 Japanese lives lost because our boys give as good as they get.

Or... the bomb with 200,000 Japanese lives.

200K vs. 200K

So yeah, discounting whose lives they were, without a "way-back machine" it's debatable as to whether the bomb saved more lives than it took. You can't know, nor can I.

But make no mistake, I'm no bleeding heart. Any number of American soldiers saved was worth even a third bomb on Tokyo. As has been said, they started it, we finished it.


-T.

 

[BlackBearME]

Heh, the highest honor in my religion is to die in battle.

Sooooooo, I'm gonna have to say the creation of weapons is just fine.

Then again, my outlook on the world has always been slightly skewed.

Either way, it need not go deeper than that. If it has a benefit, then make it. It's not your fault if someone used it the wrong way.

 

[Owens]

The OP has many facets to the question. I can certainly see why some people may think that the creation of a certain item may be construed to be as evil as using the item. However, in my view, as many have said, it is the person that uses it and how they use it that either makes it good/bad. Sometimes it is not whether it is used or by whom, but what were their motives and intentions for using it. So the question becomes more of what are the motives and intents for making item (X)? The answer to that will depend on the perception of the person asking, and of course their answer will be shaded based on their own history and society.

My view simply put, it's just a tool.

 

[ozwyn]

no, no and generally no.

The only questionable area may be biological weapons - creating life specifically to kill as much as possible before it is exterminated.

Bioweapons if the only real gray area since technically the weapon is alive. Even then you can split a lot of hairs on that.

Of course, counter-agents and research related to weapon development has spun off to civilian and medical areas saving vastly more lives than the weapons have taken......

 

[rdhood]

Random thoughts...

Cars, knives, dyanamite, baseball bats, rope, electricity all have been used to take lives (to name a few).

Self defense is a basic instinct of ALL animals. There is nothing immoral about it. It was programmed into your genetic code thousands of years before you were born. The framers of the Constitution recognized it as a basic right and specifically enumerated it.

Do not be confused by modern civilization and police forces. Every system of government and civilization known to man has collapsed... sooner or later. The temporary reprieve of having to defend oneself 24/7 is an illusion. In much of the world, people STILL have to be on guard and ready to defend all of the time (not just against other men).

So, OP, your moral dilemma is brought about by a false sense of security and the failure to realize the true struggle of all life forms.

 

[#shooter]

Ok I’ll bite.
Manufactures have 3 main responsibilities –
1. The product works as advertised
2. The product is safe, free form manufacturing defects, when used properly
3. The product was manufactured as safely as possible

Manufactures should not be responsible for how their products are used or misused.

 

[Deanimator]

It seems that we were expecting such high casualties in an invasion of the Japanese home islands that we went ahead and ordered 400,000 Purple Hearts. What is amazing is that we are STILL giving out Purple Hearts from that order. That order has lasted us through Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, and every military exercise since VJ Day.

When the planning for the invasion of Kyushu started, they were expecting a 3-1 numerical advantage over the defenders, the standard ratio for a successful attack.

By the time the bombs were dropped, the ratio of US to Japanese forces had dropped to 1-1. Anybody who thinks that the bombs DIDN'T save lives simply has no understanding of the situation on the ground at the time the war ended. Of course I've talked to a few people who think that we should have "negotiated" with the Japanese... which is of course just allowing them to keep their slave states of Korea and Manchuria.

We would certainly have defeated the Japanese in a conventional invasion. We also certainly would have taken astonishing casualties. Of course had the invasions gone ahead, you'd have to go to California or Brazil to meet an ethnic Japanese. Those 20 round full-auto Garands and .30-06 MG42s would have been rough on those Japanese Girl Scouts with their bamboo spears... nevermind the poison gas...

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by walkalong: Was dropping the bomb wrong? It saved untold number of lives in the long run.

It was wrong to drop the bomb as Japan was going to surrender soon and the USA wanted to scare the Russians.

As for guns... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Mystery_House

Some people think the ghosts of the guns creator haunt them. There is a big special on TV about this on the History Channel I believe.

It has been reported that those who designed the atom bombs have regretted it as they are responsible for something horrible in the world.

 

[swifteagle]

People die every year by being hit over the head with a baseball bat or bedside lamp. But many more people are able to use those same tools for good purposes such as playing baseball or having light near their bed. Same thing with guns, millions of crimes are averted every year by civilians who have guns to defend themselves. Police find them rather handy too.

 

[eflatminor]

You asked: "Are there any moral or ethical boundaries to creating a gun or device capable of taking another life?". If you believe there are such boundaries, then lions, tigers and bears would be on the top of the food chain instead of humans. Our species sits on the top because we have the ability, with our big brains and opposable thumbs, to create weapons capable of taking a life that is stronger or larger or otherwise badder than us. This holds true if your enemy is a pack of wolves or a lowlife thug intent on taking what doesn't belong to him.

So no, I would say there are NO boundaries to creating something capable of taking life. That ability is exactly why we evolved to rule the earth.

 

[JKimball]

JKimball:

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

cnorman18,

Yeah, that's my understanding.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Scimiter

Here's picture of a modern cimeter:
http://www.acemart.com/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=FOR40133

 

[CypherNinja]

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.

LOL!!!

'Primitive animist' just got file away for future use.

 

[Thernlund]

Of course, counter-agents and research related to weapon development has spun off to civilian and medical areas saving vastly more lives than the weapons have taken......

Debatable.


-T.

 

[JWarren]

Tecumseh wrote:

It was wrong to drop the bomb as Japan was going to surrender soon and the USA wanted to scare the Russians.

I'd like to see a source please.


I have yet to see anything credible that suggests that:

1. The Japanese were planning on surrendering.

2. We dropped the bomb to scare the Russians.


I have no doubt that we LIKED the idea that it would scare the Russians, but it would be a stretch to suggest that this was the PRIMARY motive.


Suggesting the Japanese were planning to surrender is pure speculation unless we can get the words from the Emperor himself. Even then, there is a credibility issue since they DIDN'T until after the dropping.


Bottom line: Japan was an aggressor. Whether it was intended or not as a sneak attack, that is exactly what Pearl Harbor was. If we were expecting the casualties the documentary I saw (among other sources), I have ZERO reservations about our decision.

And anyone who has a loved one that was ordered to that invasion SHOULD feel the same. Period.


Hindsight and Revisionist History are only sources of self-imposed, irrational guilt. The decision was made be people who had a firm understanding of the current situation and the resources we had at our disposal. They made that decision, and we, in 2007, are in no position to criticize it with any credibility.


-- John

 

[ozwyn]

I would like to see the source cited on the Japan surrender claim as well. Especially given the lack of mass surrender and preference towards mass suicide in Okinawa by both civilians and military personnel there.

Given the culture at the time, I suspect mass suicide by civilians before invading US forces arrived would be more likely. One could also argue Japan had already deployed weapons of mass destruction with their bioweapon deployments in China... it is not out of the question that they might use volunteers to try and infect US forces.

A nearly absolute commitment to the cause was probably Japan's best advantage in the war. They would not roll over easily in an invasion.

 

[Thernlund]

I think this thread has wandered off-topic (partly due to me I suppose).


-T.