3 ms·

>Tools have to have other moral significance. If they didn't, no one would ever make a value judgment or propose a law regarding a tool. I object to this kind

>Tools have to have other moral significance. If they didn't, no one would ever make a value judgment or propose a law regarding a tool. I object to this kind of reasoning. Does a rock have moral significance? Isn't it illegal to hit someone with a rock and kill them? So by giving thought to that possibility, I have shown that a rock does have moral significance? Tools simply enhance a users ability to affect the world around them. And fundamentally something that only enhances cannot be be morally bad because it can simply not be used.

dwaltrip 7y ago
The moral significance of a rock might be minor. It isn't most people's first choice for a murder weapon. If I saw someone carrying a weapon-sized rock, I might somewhat suspicious, but I wouldn't be seriously alarmed, like I would if they were holding a gun or knife. > Tools simply enhance a users ability to affect the world around them. Some tools are very general. It's hard to imagine faulting the tool, as it is so useful that it isn't an serious option to abandon it, even if some people use it for bad purposes. Other tools are not so general. A straight-forward example may be high-explosives. They can used for good, but those situations are very specific and easily recognizable. If high-explosives are found outside of those contexts, the moral significance is obvious. There is a decent chance that someone has bad intentions. A very clear and compelling explanation would be needed to resolve the matter. Most tools are fairly benign. Or the beneficial usage significantly outnumbers any malicious examples, especially in common contexts. But I don't think means that all tools are by default neutral. At risk of belaboring the point, here are two more examples: * Utility knife: (1) When camping: good (2) In an elementary school: bad * Cameras: (1) 99% of the time: good (2) In the public showers or changing room: bad In the above "bad" scenarios, I would say the tool itself takes on a negative moral significance. Obviously, there can be caveats -- e.g. you might be filming a movie -- but you get the idea. I'm curious what you think of this.

dwaltrip 7y ago

The moral significance of a rock might be minor. It isn't most people's first choice for a murder weapon. If I saw someone carrying a weapon-sized rock, I might somewhat suspicious, but I wouldn't be seriously alarmed, like I would if they were holding a gun or knife. > Tools simply enhance a users ability to affect the world around them. Some tools are very general. It's hard to imagine faulting the tool, as it is so useful that it isn't an serious option to abandon it, even if some people use it for bad purposes. Other tools are not so general. A straight-forward example may be high-explosives. They can used for good, but those situations are very specific and easily recognizable. If high-explosives are found outside of those contexts, the moral significance is obvious. There is a decent chance that someone has bad intentions. A very clear and compelling explanation would be needed to resolve the matter. Most tools are fairly benign. Or the beneficial usage significantly outnumbers any malicious examples, especially in common contexts. But I don't think means that all tools are by default neutral. At risk of belaboring the point, here are two more examples: * Utility knife: (1) When camping: good (2) In an elementary school: bad * Cameras: (1) 99% of the time: good (2) In the public showers or changing room: bad In the above "bad" scenarios, I would say the tool itself takes on a negative moral significance. Obviously, there can be caveats -- e.g. you might be filming a movie -- but you get the idea. I'm curious what you think of this.