4 ms·

Theres nothing immoral about weapons development. Warfare and its plagues has an always been a human problem. Unless it violates personal beliefs akin to any

Theres nothing immoral about weapons development. Warfare and its plagues has an always been a human problem. Unless it violates personal beliefs akin to any conscientious objector. I say this on a technology forum because, while i am a technologist now, i worked a past career doing weapons tech with bright and moral people. Weapons tech development has an always been a scary realm bc any force/battlefield superiority almost ALWAYS results in its use...anf subsequent loss of life, combatant and otherwise. Its a best of the worst kind of scenerios.

perfmode 8y ago
(Genuinely curious about how different people become confident in their moral and ethical convictions.) Weapons development is not immoral because we have always waged war?
- rjf72 8y ago
  There's a great paradox with weapons. Imagine a world where somehow we agreed to stop development of any and all things that could be even somewhat effectively used as weapons, all the way down to the butter knife. The problem you've created now is that if we have just a single person decide to go against this and start developing weapons he would be able to forcefully impose his will as he saw fit with very little that could be done about it. And this is even worse when you take the analog away from individuals and consider it in terms of nations. Imagine one nation goes this direction. Now suddenly this one nation, which is probably a bit below par on the ethics meter, would suddenly be able to forcefully impose its will on the entirety of the world. This means that it is a paradoxical imperative for ethical nations to maintain and develop as powerful of weapons as they can, even when they have absolutely 0 intent on ever using those weapons. Because otherwise, they risk falling victim to the lowest common denominator that does intend to use them. In reality this all gets really messed up, because as the person you were responding to said weapons almost invariably end up being utilized, often amorally, regardless of the player considered. So you're left in a scenario where if you don't develop weapons then you risk conceding the world to the least ethical player there is, yet if you do develop weapons then you are all but accepting that they will probably be used in an unethical fashion at some point. Two pretty awful decisions, but I think one is worse than the other.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    Since I am an American citizen, I am particularly interested in this question with respect to my country of citizenship. Would you consider the United States an ethical nation? Which nations do you consider to be ethical when it comes to this question? Your argument makes sense in the abstract. However, I see the potential for inapplicability when applied to “real” nation states.
    - SturgeonsLaw 8y ago
      I'm not OP, but from my point of view, the United States has been one of the most likely nations in the world to use its weaponry on others (by my count, it's currently involved in 7 military operations [1]), and has been involved in dozens more over the last few decades. It has formulated dubious reasons, and in some cases outright fabrications, in order to justify some of these military actions, and in doing so, has destroyed countless lives, a number of those innocent ones. That's not ethical. The reality of the world is that yes, there are actors out there who will do others harm if they can, and one of the duties of a nation is to protect its citizens. I am not opposed to a true defense force, to protect against invasion. But once that military power is projected outwards in order to fulfill political and economic goals unrelated to national defense, then a line has been crossed and that behaviour can hardly be considered ethical any more. I should note that I don't consider my nation, Australia, to be ethical on these matters either based on past behaviours (sometimes being involved in these very same conflicts). [1] Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Niger, Yemen
maxander 8y ago
You assert that there's nothing immoral about weapons development, and go on to almost directly contradict this- noting that "force/battlefield superiority" tends to lead to the use of these weapons, killing people. I really don't see what your point is; are you trying to argue that an occupation that leads to unnecessary human deaths is moral?
- drharby 8y ago
  Unnecessary human death is a function of the policy makers. The weapons development is an enabler, but the 'why' behind the use of these weapons is where the moral obligation resides.

perfmode 8y ago

(Genuinely curious about how different people become confident in their moral and ethical convictions.) Weapons development is not immoral because we have always waged war?

rjf72 8y ago
There's a great paradox with weapons. Imagine a world where somehow we agreed to stop development of any and all things that could be even somewhat effectively used as weapons, all the way down to the butter knife. The problem you've created now is that if we have just a single person decide to go against this and start developing weapons he would be able to forcefully impose his will as he saw fit with very little that could be done about it. And this is even worse when you take the analog away from individuals and consider it in terms of nations. Imagine one nation goes this direction. Now suddenly this one nation, which is probably a bit below par on the ethics meter, would suddenly be able to forcefully impose its will on the entirety of the world. This means that it is a paradoxical imperative for ethical nations to maintain and develop as powerful of weapons as they can, even when they have absolutely 0 intent on ever using those weapons. Because otherwise, they risk falling victim to the lowest common denominator that does intend to use them. In reality this all gets really messed up, because as the person you were responding to said weapons almost invariably end up being utilized, often amorally, regardless of the player considered. So you're left in a scenario where if you don't develop weapons then you risk conceding the world to the least ethical player there is, yet if you do develop weapons then you are all but accepting that they will probably be used in an unethical fashion at some point. Two pretty awful decisions, but I think one is worse than the other.
- perfmode 8y ago
  Since I am an American citizen, I am particularly interested in this question with respect to my country of citizenship. Would you consider the United States an ethical nation? Which nations do you consider to be ethical when it comes to this question? Your argument makes sense in the abstract. However, I see the potential for inapplicability when applied to “real” nation states.
  - SturgeonsLaw 8y ago
    I'm not OP, but from my point of view, the United States has been one of the most likely nations in the world to use its weaponry on others (by my count, it's currently involved in 7 military operations [1]), and has been involved in dozens more over the last few decades. It has formulated dubious reasons, and in some cases outright fabrications, in order to justify some of these military actions, and in doing so, has destroyed countless lives, a number of those innocent ones. That's not ethical. The reality of the world is that yes, there are actors out there who will do others harm if they can, and one of the duties of a nation is to protect its citizens. I am not opposed to a true defense force, to protect against invasion. But once that military power is projected outwards in order to fulfill political and economic goals unrelated to national defense, then a line has been crossed and that behaviour can hardly be considered ethical any more. I should note that I don't consider my nation, Australia, to be ethical on these matters either based on past behaviours (sometimes being involved in these very same conflicts). [1] Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Niger, Yemen

maxander 8y ago

You assert that there's nothing immoral about weapons development, and go on to almost directly contradict this- noting that "force/battlefield superiority" tends to lead to the use of these weapons, killing people. I really don't see what your point is; are you trying to argue that an occupation that leads to unnecessary human deaths is moral?

drharby 8y ago
Unnecessary human death is a function of the policy makers. The weapons development is an enabler, but the 'why' behind the use of these weapons is where the moral obligation resides.