NationStates Jolt Archive


Is it wrong for scientists to design weapons?

New British Glory
25-04-2005, 12:02
Its the old "Who is worse: the man who pulls the trigger or the man who made the trigger?" sort of question.

Although designing weaponry has none of the direct moral connections as they do not use the weaponry, they are still responsible for using their knowledge to kill people. If they did not invent the weapons, then there would be no trigger for the man to pull. The scientists must realise that the weapons will be used to eventually kill people but yet they ignore that knowledge and go ahead.

A difficult one, certainly....
Fachistos
25-04-2005, 12:04
yeah...and it's not the bullet that kills, it's the hole it makes. :gundge:
Legless Pirates
25-04-2005, 12:07
It is. But their knowledge usually gets abused to make weapons
McLeod03
25-04-2005, 12:09
It's better than Arts students designing them, lets be honest. They'd be all chrome and pink flowers.

See, I can make sweeping generalisations too NBG. Aren't I amazingly clever/

[/sarcasm]
Exomnia
25-04-2005, 12:12
I think that its not as long as the weapon is not like nerve gas or something. Then its horrible.
LazyHippies
25-04-2005, 12:12
The simple answer is no. There is nothing wrong with it.

Weapons are useful for self defense, for fighting wars, for hunting, for sport. The people who design or create them have no responsability for how they are used. Weapons are merely tools that can be used for a variety of purposes.

Where they do hold some moral accountability is when they design weapon systems that are only useful for killing people and are excessively cruel or inhumane (napalm for example).
New British Glory
25-04-2005, 12:14
It's better than Arts students designing them, lets be honest. They'd be all chrome and pink flowers.

See, I can make sweeping generalisations too NBG. Aren't I amazingly clever/

[/sarcasm]
Yes, Mcleod, you continue calling arguments you disagree with "sweeping generalisations". I would advise you to learn how to debate properly rather than like a 10 year olrd who has discovered the glib phrase 'sweeping generalisation'.
Quagmir
25-04-2005, 12:17
The simple answer is no. There is nothing wrong with it.

Weapons are useful for self defense, for fighting wars, for hunting, for sport. The people who design or create them have no responsability for how they are used. Weapons are merely tools that can be used for a variety of purposes.

Where they do hold some moral accountability is when they design weapon systems that are only useful for killing people and are excessively cruel or inhumane (napalm for example).

would you call nuclear weapons excessively cruel?
McLeod03
25-04-2005, 12:20
Yes, Mcleod, you continue calling arguments you disagree with "sweeping generalisations". I would advise you to learn how to debate properly rather than like a 10 year olrd who has discovered the glib phrase 'sweeping generalisation'.

Twice. I've used it twice. Why? Because that is exactly what you are making. It's called being honest. Telling the truth. Not bullshitting. Like your "All good science students build weapons" and "2 out of 10,000 will design power sources, the rest will make beer or chemicals" statements, which are, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Think about it. Right now you are, presumably, in a building. Sat on a chair, using a computer. Who designed that chair? That computer? The components in them? Who designed and constructed the electricity powering your rants right now? An Arts student?

Doubt it.
LazyHippies
25-04-2005, 12:22
would you call nuclear weapons excessively cruel?

Back in WW2, yes. The goal back then was to actually use them to obliterate civilians. But today, no. The purpose of strategic nuclear weapons today is no longer to utilize them but rather to deter potential attackers. Now, if you are talking about tactical nuclear weapons, then it really depends on the weapon. A nuclear bunker buster would not be excessively cruel but a tactical nuke that leaves the ground radiated for generations would be.
Neo Cannen
25-04-2005, 12:22
Well logically, we praise Swan and Edision for the creation of the lightbulb for all it brought. We should therefore lambaster the creators of the gun for all it has brought. But I dont think that that kind of logic has a place here.
Greedy Pig
25-04-2005, 13:04
No.

Even chemical/biological weapons, though we shouldn't be creating them.

I believe we have to keep on improving our weapons, because if we fall short behind, when the aliens attack we'll be so screwed. What are we going to fight them with? Sticks and stones?

Ok ok.. in a more serious note.. It's important to create better weapons because hopefully one day we can subjugate the enemy with less or no casualties, like Iraq war, US overrun the Iraqi army with less than 800 (?) casualties.

Weapons can come in all forms, including lasers to destroy incoming missles, or robots that can reduce casualties, or even better stun weapons.

The rest came after. Scientist predicts homing bullets made out of ceramics would be created in the near future. And even better flashbang grenades that can blind enemies in a room temporarily for hours.
Karas
25-04-2005, 13:59
It's better than Arts students designing them, lets be honest. They'd be all chrome and pink flowers.

See, I can make sweeping generalisations too NBG. Aren't I amazingly clever/

[/sarcasm]

Duce, that is exactly why art students should make weapons. Would I buy a gun that with chrome accents and pink flower inlay? Of course I would.

Weapons are art.

Also, weapons are cool. Super-Science is cool. Sper-Science weapons are cooler. Thereform, scients should devolp weapons and artists should refine them
New British Glory
25-04-2005, 14:01
Twice. I've used it twice. Why? Because that is exactly what you are making. It's called being honest. Telling the truth. Not bullshitting. Like your "All good science students build weapons" and "2 out of 10,000 will design power sources, the rest will make beer or chemicals" statements, which are, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Think about it. Right now you are, presumably, in a building. Sat on a chair, using a computer. Who designed that chair? That computer? The components in them? Who designed and constructed the electricity powering your rants right now? An Arts student?

Doubt it.

I really dont think science students can take the credit for inventing chairs.
Pure Metal
25-04-2005, 14:03
Its the old "Who is worse: the man who pulls the trigger or the man who made the trigger?" sort of question.

Although designing weaponry has none of the direct moral connections as they do not use the weaponry, they are still responsible for using their knowledge to kill people. If they did not invent the weapons, then there would be no trigger for the man to pull. The scientists must realise that the weapons will be used to eventually kill people but yet they ignore that knowledge and go ahead.

A difficult one, certainly....
"it takes a stronger man to put a gun down than to fire it in anger" - i think the man who pulls the trigger is 'worse'.

as for whether scientists should make weapons, i'm a pacifist. if nobody made weapons there would be no weapons. its simple. so, no, scientists (and preferably no-one) should make weapons at all
Findecano Calaelen
25-04-2005, 14:11
I really dont think science students can take the credit for inventing chairs.
I think both are acredited to engineers, scientists can take the "discovery" of electricity though
Ecopoeia
25-04-2005, 14:14
Well, yes, if they would otherwise be doing work that is more beneficial to humanity. Still, someone has to design the weapons - the ones that reduce casualties (as stated by Greedy Pig), anyway.
The Grand States
25-04-2005, 14:16
In truth, scientists have no need to make weapons, humanity will make weapons out of whatever is available. You can create quite a deadly mine with just a highliter and some wire. Scientists are simply perfecting what humanity natural uses for efficiency
Independent Homesteads
25-04-2005, 14:20
You can create quite a deadly mine with just a highliter and some wire.

a) no you can't

b) if a) is false, it was a scientist that discovered this

and if people make weapons out of what is lying around, they are much more likely to come up with "the pointy stick" and "the big stone" than they are to come up with ICBMs with nuclear warheads etc
Crabcake Baba Ganoush
25-04-2005, 14:38
"The definition of a scientist, a man who understood nothing, until there was nothing left to understand." -Matthias
Mazalandia
25-04-2005, 14:41
No, it is not wrong for scientists to develop weapons.
What is wrong to pay scientists to develop weapons.
Many technological achievements come from trying to design wapons or during wars, but most scientists only care about weapons because it pays. On a side note, Agent Orange was a herbicide that had negative effects on humans. Scientists did not create it for war purposes
What science creates can be misused
Greedy Pig
25-04-2005, 14:44
"it takes a stronger man to put a gun down than to fire it in anger" - i think the man who pulls the trigger is 'worse'.

as for whether scientists should make weapons, i'm a pacifist. if nobody made weapons there would be no weapons. its simple. so, no, scientists (and preferably no-one) should make weapons at all

Then again, sometimes a fight is inevitable.

Weapons can works both ways. To protect and to kill, there are times when we are unfortunately not the agressor, and that is when we have a weapon, it'll come in handy. It's always about who has the upper advantage or better weapons in a fight that is inevitable and so I believe we should improve our weapons.
Whispering Legs
25-04-2005, 14:55
Being a pacifist is nice if you plan on having other people defend you so you can keep your hands and conscience clean.

But if no one defends you, you may end up someone's slave, or worse.

Pacifism is a luxury.

Just because an item can be used as a weapon (and is used as a weapon), does not automatically mean that the use is immoral. Morality is not the purview of the weapon, and not even of the person who invented it. Morality is the user's responsibility.

Wielding power is the question. You can wield power wisely, or unwisely. Part of what makes us human.
Ahtnamas
25-04-2005, 14:56
I think it's the man who pulled the trigger. Sure, guns make killing easier, but it's the human who is truly at fault. Many things could be used to kills, and certainly not all were designed to kill.

If nobody had in invented guns, we'd be stabbing each other to death. Without knives, we'd be hitting each other with sticks. And without sticks... well, there's boxing or martial arts. You can kill without weapons, so why blame weapons for the killing?
Whispering Legs
25-04-2005, 15:08
You might be able to say that inventing a weapon that could annihilate the whole world would be immoral.

So, if you could invent a "history eraser button" that vaporized all of human existence through time in an eyeblink...
Pure Metal
25-04-2005, 15:21
Being a pacifist is nice if you plan on having other people defend you so you can keep your hands and conscience clean.

But if no one defends you, you may end up someone's slave, or worse.

Pacifism is a luxury.

Just because an item can be used as a weapon (and is used as a weapon), does not automatically mean that the use is immoral. Morality is not the purview of the weapon, and not even of the person who invented it. Morality is the user's responsibility.

Wielding power is the question. You can wield power wisely, or unwisely. Part of what makes us human.
pacifism is a luxury i am glad i can choose. and people may end up slaves under pacifism, yes, but you have to choose whether suffering that pain of slavery/persecution is 'better' than spilling blood. would you rather take the path of morality and subject yourself to be a slave, or become as immoral as your oppressors by fighting back? clciky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha)
Whispering Legs
25-04-2005, 15:38
pacifism is a luxury i am glad i can choose. and people may end up slaves under pacifism, yes, but you have to choose whether suffering that pain of slavery/persecution is 'better' than spilling blood. would you rather take the path of morality and subject yourself to be a slave, or become as immoral as your oppressors by fighting back? clciky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha)

Fighting back isn't necessarily immoral, nor does it make you as immoral as your oppressors.

It was moral, for instance, to fight against Hitler. Morality is not as simple as "all killing is bad".

Were the people who fought back on Flight 19 when they realized what the hijackers planned committing an immoral act by attacking the hijackers and forcing a premature end to their own lives? Or were they saving the lives of countless others by their violent act of sacrifice?
Pure Metal
25-04-2005, 15:43
Fighting back isn't necessarily immoral, nor does it make you as immoral as your oppressors.

It was moral, for instance, to fight against Hitler. Morality is not as simple as "all killing is bad".

Were the people who fought back on Flight 19 when they realized what the hijackers planned committing an immoral act by attacking the hijackers and forcing a premature end to their own lives? Or were they saving the lives of countless others by their violent act of sacrifice?
well there are perhaps special cases like that 911 one, but in general, for me, harming others is bad and killing is a form of harm. it is as simple as that.
there are other forms of self-defense than violence

that said i'm still reading into this and making my mind up, so i'm kinda arguing in the dark here :D
Whispering Legs
25-04-2005, 15:45
well there are perhaps special cases like that 911 one, but in general, for me, harming others is bad and killing is a form of harm. it is as simple as that.
there are other forms of self-defense than violence

that said i'm still reading into this and making my mind up, so i'm kinda arguing in the dark here :D

You avoid violence when you can. But you should be ready for it, since there will always be assholes who will offer it.

Each situation has to be taken in its own light. You can't make a blanket statement that "all is good" or "all is bad".
Greedy Pig
25-04-2005, 15:51
well there are perhaps special cases like that 911 one, but in general, for me, harming others is bad and killing is a form of harm. it is as simple as that.
there are other forms of self-defense than violence

that said i'm still reading into this and making my mind up, so i'm kinda arguing in the dark here :D

I bet like most sound minded forumers here, if there is a choice to avoid a fight, then I/we would most likely take that choice.

But unfortunately, sometimes just 'talking it out' doesn't work. So it's either you, your love ones or them dying.
Hooliganland
25-04-2005, 15:52
Have you noticed that we are the only life forms on Earth that spend their time inventing new ways of killing EACH OTHER. Sadly enough, intelligence entails conflict.
The Feylands
25-04-2005, 15:52
Quite simply, if we didn't have scientists to make weapons, then everyone else who did would be able to kill us.
The Mycon
25-04-2005, 15:58
I, for one, would much rather have a bullet go through my skull and kill me immediately than have someone spending ten minutes trying to pound a semi-sharp rock through me. I'd rather have a limb cleanly hacked off by a stainless steel blade than have a copper one get to the bone, bend, and then have the person keep hacking away as I bled to death, almost defenseless but still too much of a threat to ignore.

I applaud the scientist/engineer for making these cleaner, less painful methods of death commonly available, saving people so much pain and anguish in the fights that are inevitable between human beings, and for making methods to collect and use what resources we have so that fighting is less necessary. Y'all are welcome to go back to being a noble savage if you like, but I'm fond of running water, and will happily take the comfort of a quick, painless death with it.
Whispering Legs
25-04-2005, 16:03
Along the same lines, I applaud the scientist who invents precision guided weapons that land right on a military target, instead of falling into my neighborhood at random.
Aquinion
25-04-2005, 16:18
Weapons contain no inherent moral value. They are used for killing, but whether that killing is wrong or not is a matter of perspective.

In some cases, such as a state execution, the killing is called just and widely viewed to be just. In others, a man shoots a drug store clerk during a robbery and does what is called widely an evil act.

The morality of killing comes from the actions of the killer, not the weapon itself, so I don't believe that it's wrong for scientists to design weapons.