Do you believe that there is any place for weapons in this world?

[Stevendsmith]

I realize it’s an odd question, but I was listening to Mike Malloy rant (justifiably) about the moral offensiveness of weapons merchants, and I had to ask myself the question. Under what circumstances or to what extent are weapons (instruments designed to hurt or kill) morally justifiable?

In the case of the United States, what is a justifiable level of defense (armed forces and weaponry)?

[Lex1775]

1. Doesn't matter what you believe...

Because there will ALWAYS be weapons in this world. The steak knife in your kitchen drawer, the hammer in your tool box, the axe in your shed, the gun in your closet, the rock in your front yard... all of them have been used as weapons before.

[Stevendsmith]

2. Okay.

But I'm referring to the manufacture and use of weapons specifically to harm or kill. It's a moral question.

[Lex1775]

3. Not being a smartass, but define "weapon".

I am going to assume that you are talking about firearms.

They have a purpose in modern society. Because, as has been stated time and again, they are already here. That genie is out of the bottle. You can make an individual moral decision to not own one, or use one. Lots of Americans make that decision everyday. The moral justification varies from person to person.

[Stevendsmith]

5. I'm not just talking about firearms

But, yes, firearms are the most common and lethal forms of weaponry. With respect, I’m not persuaded by the genie-is-already-out-of-the-bottle argument. Human beings are agents who are capable of making moral decisions and who are capable of change. We used to enslave people in this country, but now we don’t. We didn’t say: Slavery exists and there’s nothing we can do about it. So I ask: Is the continued use of weaponry (firearms, knives, bombs, etc.) morally justifiable?

[Lex1775]

11. True.

However, firearms represent a technological advance for the human race. To try and completely get rid of them, unless it was a unified one world movement, would put that culture and people at a serious disadvantage. It would be the cultural equivalent of suicide. Also, there is no way to control individuals from making their own. The plans are out there, the materials are commonly available, etc, etc.
England is a good example of a country trying to regulate anything considered "weapon" like. First, they pretty much banned all privately owned firearms. Now they are considering legislation to ban samuri swords, and knives over a certain length, because stabbings are on the rise. If they ban all swords and knives, force everyone to turn them in, what will be the next thing to go? Hammers? Beer bottles? Rocks?

Whether or not the use of weapons is morally justifiable is based on the individual.

[Stevendsmith]

14. You make good points.

And I appreciate the discussion.

Please understand that this is not a criticism, but I don’t agree that morality is based on the individual. That is moral relativism. I believe there are universal standards of morality – not rooted in scripture, but based on self-evident realities, such as hurting people is always bad.

I do agree that there will always be weapons. Unfortunately.

[Lex1775]

15. This is actually a pleasant experience.

Most of these discussions end up turning pretty nasty. It's nice to "debate" or "discuss" and be reasonable about it.

I agree that there are universal levels of morality... that we attain as a culture. But, that has to start somewhere, no? I don't believe we are born with the inherent notion that hurting other people is bad. Place a bunch of three year olds in a room full of toys, inevitably there will be conflict. They learn that hurting others is bad by adults teaching them so. If those individual adults didn't believe that hurting people is wrong, they wouldn't pass those ideas on to the next generation.
I wish I could recall their name, but there is a tribe of natives in the South American rainforests that value lying, cheating, physical pain inflicted on others, etc. (I can't believe I am brain dumping the tribe name right now... that sociology class was a LONG time ago.)

[Dimensio0]

4. I do believe that the existence of weapons has justification.

At present, there do exist humans who are willing to inflict harm onto others without justification, for a variety of motivations. Additionally, some of these humans will naturally have an advantageously superior physical ability to inflict this harm onto some individuals whom they may target for violence. The existence of certain weapons, therefore, can allow an equalization effect, allowing potential victims a means to defend against physically stronger aggressors.

Without such weapons, targetted victims would be at the mercy of their attackers. While the optimal situation is one where there are no aggressors, I do not believe that such a scenario will ever occur. As such, I believe that it is preferrable to allow potential victims a means to defend against physically stronger aggressors.

[jmg257]

6. and there is your answer...moral for defense of yourself, your family, your freedoms, innocents, etc

[Stevendsmith]

8. Makes sense.

When asking myself this question, I can't help but thinking about World War II. The Nazis were committing genocide, and the use of weapons to stop that genocide was, in my opinion, morally justifiable.

The other part of my question was one of degree. The United States spends ungodly amounts of money on weaponry. What is a morally justifiable level of armed forces and weaponry? That’s a tough one to answer.

[Lex1775]

13. Complex question...

You are correct, the US government spends a LOT of money on military hardware. What is the standard on which the Armed Forces is being judged though? There are countries whose militaries are much larger than the United States, when you look at pure numbers. Much of the money spent on the US Armed Forces is used up in the maintenance of highly technical weapons platforms, and the training of personnel to operate said platforms.
Case in point: The US Air Force spends billions of dollars a year in jet fuel and maintenance costs to train pilots. What is more morally justifiable, spending less money on training and potentially placing their lives in danger when asked to go into combat unprepared, or spending the money with the hope that when they do see combat that all those hours of training could give them the edge in survival?

I'll give you my morally justifiable level: Close the overseas bases in places like Europe and Korea. Bring those units home. Maintain a level of military spending that will ensure the borders of the United States can be defended successfully and that, if needed, we can deploy and fight in one major theater of combat. I think we could do this and shave a good 20-25% off the defense budget.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Whether or not they are justified kind of misses the point.

We are descended from people who were able to kill the ones who didn't pass on their genes.

Natural selection has chosen our ancestors by their ability to use weapons.

If you want to pass on your genes, you either have to use weapons or work to develop a society in which nonviolence has more upside.

...doubtless it's been tried before.


Not in a very good Friday night mood, I guess.

[Dimensio0]

12. I do not understand the concept that you are attempting to convey.

In appealing to "natural selection", it seems as though you are appealing to the naturalistic fallacy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. All I'm saying is that I wonder how many genetic dead-ends

there are among humans who thought that weapons were wrong/inappropriate/unnecessary.

We can muse all we want to about the necessity of weapons but it's all academic. Sadly, they are necessary.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Guns are a chicken and the egg question.

We may need guns because of those who live to use them on others. I don't have a solution, yet desperately want one.

Arms dealers of course simply sell to both sides, exacerbating the problem for their own profit. A good fiction book dealing with this particular topic is "Stand on Zanzibar" by John Brunner, which is likely out of print. What would happen in a future dominated by those who profit by selling to both sides, forcing a crisis? Great reading, and extremely prophetic.

[kestrel91316]

9. Ask the Quakers and the Amish, and you get one answer.

Ask a Republican and you get another. And so on.