Morally acceptable for scientists and engineers to partake?

Is it morally acceptable/justifiable for scientists and engineers to partake in weapon development research? Weapons are inherently offensive and created to harm, is it ethical on the researcher's part to conduct in such research?

state valid points please.

 

You need to be able to defend yourself against bad actors, so yes.

 

Weapons aren't inherently offensive, but people can be. It's fairly easy to justify weapons via a utilitarian argument.

 

Guns don't kill people - people kill people.

So that's my viewpoint. Plus I'm studying mechanical engineering so if I had the opportunity to take a job that paid well having to work on weapons.. hell yeah I'd take it.

 

'Weapons are inherently offensive'

That's where I'd disagree with you. There is such a thing as the defensive use of force.

And that's also how I would judge the morality of that research as well, I personally would never help any institution develop weapons that I thought might use them offensively or has a bad track record of misusing weapons or selling to other bad actors. So a lot of times it could be questionable or wrong depending on the situation. But simply developing weapons I don't think is intrinsically immoral.

 

Weapons are created to harm right? In that case, how are they not inherently offensive? Sure, they can be justified in a given war using a utilitarian argument but when they are misused, you cannot justify them the same way.

While that may be true, guns enable people to commit killings on a mass scale. On a ethical standpoint, don't developers hold some responsibility for this?

As I've said to Nick, aren't weapons created to harm so how are they not inherently offensive?

They can be used defensively but they can also be misused offensively. A lot of weapons developed have been wrongly used by people (often in the future). Take for example the AK47 or the atomic bomb. The creation of such weapons allow it to be misused. The developers hold some responsibility for their creations from an ethical standpoint, do they not?

 

Honestly, I'd say it all comes down to those who make the decisions on using such weapons. Developers are just creating their devices. Are these devices capable of mass murder? Sure. Did these creators give the idea/concept to individuals in power? Sure. But did they pull the trigger? No.

They may of provided the means, but they did nothing more. It's those who use them that are responsible for the fallout. Now while this may be true, the creators themselves may feel guilt knowing they put a loaded gun into someone else's hand (ex: creator of the ak47.)

Morales will vary depending on location, culture, norms, all that jazz. What is moral where I live could be incredibly immoral somewhere else. You can "justify" anything.

Research is just that, research, what people do with that research is an entirely different animal. It is not immoral for me to research how to create the biggest bomb radius. Now, arguably it is immoral for someone to use my research to create this bomb radius, killing people.

I suppose why weapons are created would depend on the viewpoint. One could feasibly argued they were created for protection, or even a deterrence. With that, they are not inherently offensive.

Well if they're being misused, does that not go against their purpose?

Humans have been killing humans in mass is in no way a new thing. Either way, ethics vary from culture to culture. What I see as ethical you may not.

They are obviously responsible for the creation of such weapons, but not the killings. That is human behavior taking advantage of technology to kill each other in more efficient ways in an attempt to achieve some goal. In reality, weapons have (had?) uses other than war.

As I stated earlier, if anything is being misused, does that not go against their purpose? In what way is a creator responsible if individuals misuse what they created. That misuse falls on the individual. At most, the creator created an opportunity for misuse.

I do not know if I would really argue either the AK47 or the atomic bomb was misused. Weapons may not be inherently offensive, but they are made for killing, and they did just that. Also, the atomic bomb being used saved millions of lives (at the cost of around 225,000) so I would hardly say that was misused. Again, ethics vary, but I say no. Someone providing me with someone does not mean I have to use it.

 

That's a non-sequitur.

Weapons harm, therefore they are inherently offensive. ???

If a man comes up to me while I'm pulling cash out of the atm, and says "I'm going to fucking kill you" and charges at me with a knife it isn't an act of aggression to shoot/stab/knock him out until I'm able to stop him from what he's doing.

Like I said, if you knowingly sell to someone (like a government) that you know is going to do a great deal of harm with them then I'd argue that's probably unethical.

But if you manufacture handguns for example, I don't think you're guilty if 1/10,000 people uses it for murder. In the same way the manufacturer of the kitchen knife in the grocery store isn't responsible.

Are you arguing that if you misuse a product the manufacturer is responsible?

I partially agree with you. I think developing the atomic bomb/ak47 specifically to sell to governments to use offensively is unethical. But I don't think an inanimate object can be inherently offensive, or that private firearms manufacturers for example once they sell to someone after due diligence.

 

Weapons are not offensive it is the way people use the weapons that make it offensive!