4 ms·
Good points, At the same time, reducing the cost of killing people and destroying things (which is a military's legitimate job) makes it more likely those actio
by forapurpose 8y ago
Good points, At the same time, reducing the cost of killing people and destroying things (which is a military's legitimate job) makes it more likely those actions will be ordered by political leaders.
Let's say a technology could be developed that allowed your government (wherever you are) to kill any person with almost zero cost and no chance of detection. Would it be moral to aid in its development?
If it wasn't for WWII or the risk of falling behind competitors, should those scientists and engineers have developed the atomic bomb?
- star-techate 8y ago> Let's say a technology could be developed that allowed your government (wherever you are) to kill any person with almost zero cost and no chance of detection. oh yeah, I remember that Hitman mission. "Would it be morally justified for an assassin to kill me?" is a good question to add to the project-acceptance checklist.