• The ethics of weapons design and supply
    44 replies, posted
I just started my first year of Mechanical Engineering at university, and I was looking through one of my many expensive textbooks when I found a whole chapter devoted to the responsibilities and ethical implications of engineering. I made references to Chernobyl in regards to the ethics of poor engineering design, and it had a section asking students to discuss with their peers in regards to the ethics of designing and supplying weapons (anything from a knife, to an assault rifle, to a thermo-nuclear weapon). I'll start off by saying; there are many uses for weapons in a non weapon manner, such as using a knife to eat a meal, to target shooting, to using explosives in mining and industry. These are all undeniably legitimate uses, though some people may argue that some of these are unnecessary (such as target shooting or hunting) and therefore should be banned. I want to point out this isn’t a gun control debate, we already have a thread on that and we don’t need another. I think, as a designer and seller of weapons, you can do this provided you know (within reasonable grounds) that they will not be used for crime/evil/etc. If you know, or on reasonable grounds know, that they will be used for a morally incorrect act, you have an obligation not to sell, design or provide them to said persons. Comments? THIS IS [u]NOT[/u] A DEBATE ABOUT GUN CONTROL; WE ALREADY HAVE A THREAD ON THAT. And no, this is not homework; we haven’t gotten to ethics yet
We've entered into a new frontier where weapons capabilities and even the characteristics of what makes a 'weapon' seeks new definition. By that, I'm referring to the fact that mathematically speaking, there is a certain number of orbiting satellites, which, if we have that many orbiting satellites (and we eventually will), if one of them is destroyed, it will cause a chain reaction that will destroy all of the satellites in orbit. This, coupled with the fact that independent nations launch their own satellites and have sovereign control over them and a vested interest in them, basically opens up low Earth orbit to becoming the new high ground in a future technological war. The methods of escalation are not unheard-of. This is what made the space race happen. ICBM development came about as a side effect of achieving strategic parity. The Soviet Union developed and flew a space shuttle, Buran, and associated launch systems, merely to achieve strategic parity with the US Space Shuttle; there was never any defined mission for it other than "match or exceed Space Shuttle specs". Among other things, they were afraid of the Shuttle's abort orbit once around capability, given that it could conceivably be used to execute a covert tactical nuclear strike within Soviet airspace and the Shuttle will be back on the runway at Edwards AFB before anyone could prove it had ever been anywhere. And so with this kind of escalation going on before the stuff ever even gets to space, it's not so far-fetched to say that, once someone puts a defense system on an orbiting platform, someone else will claim that the defense system is in fact an offensive system meant to target other nation's orbiting platforms, then calling for the arming of all orbiting platforms, and then space basically becomes a Mexican standoff. Until, like I said, we get to the point where once one satellite breaks up into pieces, the destruction of every orbiting satellite is inevitable due to those pieces, so once someone pulls the trigger (be it a super power, terrorist action, some random asshole), we're all suddenly plunged into geopolitical turmoil and some measure of communications difficulties. And here's where the argument from ethics comes in, and immediately shows how much of a farce it is: Is it ethical to supply the equipment to defend satellites and by doing so simultaneously create an industry of offensive capability for them, or is it ethical to deny the free market the ability to produce those defensive or offensive technologies as they see fit?
The "guilty pleasure"-dream job of every engineer is to build the next super weapon - with one purpose only: maximum annihilation and destruction.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34988441]The "guilty pleasure"-dream job of every engineer is to build the next super weapon - with one purpose only: maximum annihilation and destruction.[/QUOTE] That sounds like a quote, where did it come from, or did you write it from scratch?
Nah just made it up right now. At least that's how I personally feel. Building weapons is just so much sexier than building a toaster or something. And the fact that it's so controversial makes it even more appealing. People wonder how the scientists and engineers involved in the Manhattan project could live with themselves or how they could even accept the job offers in the first place. I don't think there's anything strange about it. I mean, imagine... - Hey, we've got a job offer for you. I can't say much, but - with the use of never before seen [B]technologies[/B] - it could be the most [B]controversial[/B], and literally the most [B]powerful[/B] device ever constructed. You will be sent to this military base along with some other [B]elite[/B] people. Together you will work on this [B]TOP SECRET[/B] project that alone will [B]END THE WAR[/B]. This might very well be the most [B]important[/B] thing you ever do. Are you ready to take on the task of [B]'Destroyer of Worlds'[/B]? - Nah thanks, I'd rather stay here and work on this doorbell thing. It's also pretty exciting... I mean, the reason anyone becomes an engineer is pretty much to work on "cool stuff".
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34988568]Nah just made it up right now. At least that's how I personally feel. Building weapons is just so much sexier than building a toaster or something. And the fact that it's so controversial makes it even more appealing. People wonder how the scientists and engineers involved in the Manhattan project could live with themselves or how they could even accept the job offers in the first place. I don't think there's anything strange about it. I mean, imagine... - Hey, we've got a job offer for you. I can't say much, but - with the use of never before seen [B]technologies[/B] - it could be the most [B]controversial[/B], and literally the most [B]powerful[/B] device ever constructed. You will be sent to this military base along with some other [B]elite[/B] people. Together you will work on this [B]TOP SECRET[/B] project that alone will [B]END THE WAR[/B]. This might very well be the most [B]important[/B] thing you ever do. Are you ready to take on the task of [B]'Destroyer of Worlds'[/B]? - Nah thanks, I'd rather stay here and work on this doorbell thing. It's also pretty exciting... I mean, the reason anyone becomes an engineer is pretty much to work on "cool stuff".[/QUOTE] You need to condense it to an slick quote, and I wholeheartedly agree
Also another thing, it's really easy to take the word 'ethics' and skew it to a certain side of any argument. For example, one could reasonably argue that it is unethical to not provide for a person a means to defend themselves. You're setting them up with a disadvantage and that is morally wrong. In the same instance, one could also reasonably argue that it is unethical to provide weapons to people in general because they will do amoral things to each other with them. Also, those who have the most weapons will be set up with an unfair advantage over others and that is also morally wrong. There isn't a cut and dry easy answer as to what is the morally right or wrong thing to do there. Based on morality at least, either side can be reasonably argued. That's why morality shouldn't matter. Ethics, morality, rightness and wrongness, no matter what words you use, it's just a way of putting an opinion out there, that's why it can be so easily spun.
People kill people, guns are just tools. If we didn't make advanced weaponry, wars would be fought with machetes. Also to remember is that [B]a lot[/B] of technology comes from military research. There is also the fact that peace is kept because when two powers both have a good arsenal, neither wants to risk war (see the Cold War). Well that and money. Involuntarily, advanced weapons manufacturers are the ones who avoided most wars in recent times, a bit like the nuclear bomb has kept the peace better than any amount of kind words. Also I'm taking Engineering Physics at Uni next year, and I'd much rather work on designing the next Leopard than on the new Prius.
There is no ethics involved in design. It's involved in the use of that design.
Sure, creating weapons to harm other humans is [I]ethically[/I] wrong, but that doesn't make it any less necessary. At some point or another, somebody is going to try to harm you. When that time comes, you have to make sure your stick is bigger. The world doesn't run on rights and wrongs. It runs on money and blood.
Surely it is better for the technology to have been discovered so we can defend against it. Example, the Nuke. In 1940 no one had any, but the possibility is there. Only the Americans develop it, and thus they can use it how they choose. They use the Nukes on Japan. Once the British, the Russians and the Chinese had them they could not use them without risking all out war. If we totally disarm, all it will mean is that when there is another war one nation would develop it quickly and then the balance will shift back to what it was in 1945, where only one nation has it and thus has massive power. Nuclear weapons prevent a world war. The same can be said for any weapon, if it is possible, someone will eventually discover it. it is better to give it to multiple people so no one can risk it's use. If you keep it to yourself (an do not make any, or sell any) then someone else will develop them and use them. Better you have a cold war than a one sided one.
there is nothing ethically wrong with weapons design humans are violent creatures, bloodshed can never be removed if you come to embrace that, then you will have a lucrative business
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;34990197]there is nothing ethically wrong with weapons design humans are violent creatures, bloodshed can never be removed if you come to embrace that, then you will have a lucrative business[/QUOTE] What about supply? It's ok to just hand over an AK47 to a crazy person?
[QUOTE=acds;34989213]People kill people, guns are just tools. If we didn't make advanced weaponry, wars would be fought with machetes. Also to remember is that [B]a lot[/B] of technology comes from military research. There is also the fact that peace is kept because when two powers both have a good arsenal, neither wants to risk war (see the Cold War). Well that and money. Involuntarily, advanced weapons manufacturers are the ones who avoided most wars in recent times, a bit like the nuclear bomb has kept the peace better than any amount of kind words. [/QUOTE] Tools to kill people, the "I'm not responsible for what they do with it" justification isn't applicable when the object is designed for the expressed purpose of causing harm. Advanced weapons haven't done anything to keep peace, look at the unmanned drones being used around the world today. Advanced technology may bring security to major powers but they do nothing to stop those powers killing less-equipped people in fact it makes it easier for them. [QUOTE=gamefreek76;34990079] The world doesn't run on rights and wrongs. It runs on money and blood.[/QUOTE] 18th century farms ran on slave labour and helped meet society's demand for agricultural products, was it ethical to be a slave trader back then? [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;34990197]there is nothing ethically wrong with weapons design humans are violent creatures, bloodshed can never be removed if you come to embrace that, then you will have a lucrative business[/QUOTE] Designing tools to kill and selling them to people who plan to use them for that purpose isn't ethically wrong? Bloodshed may never be removed but encouraging it for profit is self-serving and immoral by any standard that takes your action's effect on others into account.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35011228]Designing tool to kill and selling them to people who plan to use them for that purpose isn't ethically wrong? Bloodshed may never be removed but encouraging it for profit is self-serving and immoral by any standard that takes your action's effect on others into account.[/QUOTE] nobody said anything about encouraging it i think accepting it is a better word [editline]5th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=download;35003722]What about supply? It's ok to just hand over an AK47 to a crazy person?[/QUOTE] well, i'd expect them to pay
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;35011567]nobody said anything about encouraging it i think accepting it is a better word [/QUOTE] Accepting isn't a better word, if you just ignored it and didn't do anything about it you'd be accepting it. When you get involved for profit it's at the very least encouraging it by providing the tools, or profiteering as it's usually called.
if you ignored it and didn't do anything about it then you would be ignoring it accepting it is realizing it exists and realizing that you can't do anything to stop it so if you can't do anything to stop it, why not profit?
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;35012068]if you ignored it and didn't do anything about it then you would be ignoring it accepting it is realizing it exists and realizing that you can't do anything to stop it so if you can't do anything to stop it, why not profit?[/QUOTE] Wow, you're an ass
why
Maybe it has something to do with thinking it's perfectly ok to sell a weapon to someone who would use it in a morally objectable way
This is the main reason they have to refer to weapons manufactures as the defense industry, you often never know what they may potentially be used for. I've worked in the past for a defense industry (5 Years, Many months spent in the middle east) and while I agree with your view (Should not be sold to countries/ people who intent to use for civil wars and oppression) It's often extremely difficult to get a proper view even when visiting the country, I've had run ins with protesters at gates who were at odds with sales of Eurofighters to Saudi for example. However I would easily been swayed if more morally objectionable contracts could have been made that would have meant I could keep my job rather than being made redundant. Which is where it could really boil down to basics, if your designs where being sold to questionable people would you resign? Or keep working to feed your family and pay the morgage?
[QUOTE=download;35018502]Maybe it has something to do with thinking it's perfectly ok to sell a weapon to someone who would use it in a morally objectable way[/QUOTE] it's not like they're going to walk up to me and say "hello i am going to use this weapon in a morally objectable way" it's a bit more complicated than that the world isn't shaded in black and white
I asked the president of some university in Manitoba's engineering department a question about weapons engineering when he visited here, he was stumped. He had stated "When engineering fails, people die." and I asked "What about weapons?" He didn't know how to respond, so he made a joke that Mech Eng make the weapons, and Civ Eng make the targets. Weapons and the engineering thereof have lead to many advances in technology, science, and math. Weapons have been a reason to discover better refining methods, improve on explosives, helped find formulae for trajectories, wind speeds, the Coriolis effect. I'm not in a mood to type a lot about it, but finding ways to efficiently kill things has improved technology, science, and math greatly.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35011228]Tools to kill people, the "I'm not responsible for what they do with it" justification isn't applicable when the object is designed for the expressed purpose of causing harm. Advanced weapons haven't done anything to keep peace, look at the unmanned drones being used around the world today. Advanced technology may bring security to major powers but they do nothing to stop those powers killing less-equipped people in fact it makes it easier for them. [/QUOTE] Oh no don't get me wrong they do indeed kill people, but hey this isn't a fairytale, people are violent and when someone approaches you brandishing a stick, you beat his skull in with your larger stick before they beat yours in. Also they do keep peace, without military equipment, what would stop China from marching into Siberia and take Russia's gas and oil? Oh and sure, it does make it easier for powers to kill less equipped people, but that's the point. Sorry but I can't feel like I'm "immoral" because I make weapons to kill the terrorist who wants to bomb civilians and is brandishing a weapon against you. I'm against any kind of death penalty, but as long as the enemy combatant hasn't surrendered, anything goes (once he does surrender he should be treated with respect and not tortured/executed, however).
[QUOTE=acds;35023934]Oh no don't get me wrong they do indeed kill people, but hey this isn't a fairytale, people are violent and when someone approaches you brandishing a stick, you beat his skull in with your larger stick before they beat yours in. Also they do keep peace, without military equipment, what would stop China from marching into Siberia and take Russia's gas and oil? Oh and sure, it does make it easier for powers to kill less equipped people, but that's the point. Sorry but I can't feel like I'm "immoral" because I make weapons to kill the terrorist who wants to bomb civilians and is brandishing a weapon against you. I'm against any kind of death penalty, but as long as the enemy combatant hasn't surrendered, anything goes (once he does surrender he should be treated with respect and not tortured/executed, however).[/QUOTE] The problem is with selling weapons to violent people/groups for a profit, in case you haven't noticed the clients of arms manufacturers aren't all people simply defending their own home, I'm afraid the people who buy MIRVs and cruise missiles have little need for them as they already have plenty of weaponry for the purposes of defense, I'm not saying weaponry will ever cease to advance but speeding up the process for your own profit is just despicable. The argument of having a bigger stick doesn't hold when the weapons have the potential to wipe out scores of innocent people who just happen to be nearby. New weapons technology does nothing to keep peace, in fact it causes greater conflict due to the disparity in weaponry and leads to serious problems (see. terrorism) Unmanned drones and attack helicopters aren't being used against terrorists or suicide-bombers, (they, by definition prefer to remain anonymous as it serves their purpose, if they wore distinctive uniforms they wouldn't be able to get anywhere near crowded train stations, restaurants, etc.) they are being used to threaten less powerful nations and groups into submission, thus bringing about phenomena like suicide-bombers and guerilla warfare since direct conflict with an enemy using such weapons would achieve nothing but death. Not that I'm condoning terrorism though I do understand it, but there is no sense arguing that supplying more destructive weapons for defending against terrorist attacks when it's the vast differences in military strength that gives rise to such acts. When you can kill people from miles above without any warning, it should be expected that your enemy will resort to other methods of doing you harm, unfortunately it's the civilians on both sides who suffer. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;35020344] Weapons and the engineering thereof have lead to many advances in technology, science, and math. Weapons have been a reason to discover better refining methods, improve on explosives, helped find formulae for trajectories, wind speeds, the Coriolis effect. I'm not in a mood to type a lot about it, but finding ways to efficiently kill things has improved technology, science, and math greatly.[/QUOTE] Do the benefits of the new technology enable the millions of deaths that have been enabled by advancing weapons technology over time? I think I'd prefer people didn't have to die just so I can buy a GPS system or fly on a 747 with a turbine engine. In a similar vein, was the unimaginable suffering of human test subject during world war 2 justified by the information gained about human endurance and hypothermia? I think modern cold-weather clothing is very useful indeed but I would, if given the choice prevent those experiments from ever taking place. [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;35020159]it's not like they're going to walk up to me and say "hello i am going to use this weapon in a morally objectable way" it's a bit more complicated than that the world isn't shaded in black and white[/QUOTE] So it's okay to sell Rohypnol to a convicted rapist? After all, you can't be held morally responsible for what he does with it after the transaction.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35024432]The problem is with selling weapons to violent people/groups for a profit, in case you haven't noticed the clients of arms manufacturers aren't all people simply defending their own home, I'm afraid the people who buy MIRVs and cruise missiles have little need for them as they already have plenty of weaponry for the purposes of defense, I'm not saying weaponry will ever cease to advance but speeding up the process for your own profit is just despicable.[/QUOTE] Depends what kind of weapons you produce and supply. Also I do no see how it is despicable to make a profit out of it, as you said it will never stop, if you don't do it someone else will (you can be all philosophical and question that if you want, but the truth is, it does not make a difference if the one getting the money is you or someone else). [QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35024432] The argument of having a bigger stick doesn't hold when the weapons have the potential to wipe out scores of innocent people who just happen to be nearby.[/QUOTE] Nowadays weaponry is more about being precise than destructive. Hence smartbombs and advanced targeting systems. So if anything, more advanced weaponry equals less civilian causalities. [QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35024432] New weapons technology does nothing to keep peace, in fact it causes greater conflict due to the disparity in weaponry and leads to serious problems (see. terrorism) Unmanned drones and attack helicopters aren't being used against terrorists or suicide-bombers, (they, by definition prefer to remain anonymous as it serves their purpose, if they wore distinctive uniforms they wouldn't be able to get anywhere near crowded train stations, restaurants, etc.) they are being used to threaten less powerful nations and groups into submission, thus bringing about phenomena like suicide-bombers and guerilla warfare since direct conflict with an enemy using such weapons would achieve nothing but death.[/QUOTE] And how would direct conflict be any better than terrorism? As you said yourself, they resort to terrorism because they don't hae the weaponry to wage a conventional war. Would it be better if they just attacked conventionally? No, it'd be worse. [QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35024432] Not that I'm condoning terrorism though I do understand it, but there is no sense arguing that supplying more destructive weapons for defending against terrorist attacks when it's the vast differences in military strength that gives rise to such acts. When you can kill people from miles above without any warning, it should be expected that your enemy will resort to other methods of doing you harm, unfortunately it's the civilians on both sides who suffer. [/QUOTE] Again, how is it bad that they have to resort to terrorism instead of crossing the border with tanks and bombarding cities? WTC was a very small death toll when compared to what bombarding a city would cause (see Dresden, and back then we didn't even have a tenth of the firepower we have now).
[QUOTE=acds;35024690]Depends what kind of weapons you produce and supply. Also I do no see how it is despicable to make a profit out of it, as you said it will never stop, if you don't do it someone else will (you can be all philosophical and question that if you want, but the truth is, it does not make a difference if the one getting the money is you or someone else). [/QUOTE] You're right there is no difference, if another person supplies them the are also being highly unethical. People are going to sell heroin, commit murder and rape, is it okay for you to do it because they do? [QUOTE=acds;35024690] Nowadays weaponry is more about being precise than destructive. Hence smartbombs and advanced targeting systems. So if anything, more advanced weaponry equals less civilian causalities. [/QUOTE] I'd tell that to the wedding-goers and journalists that have been killed by smart-weaponry, they may be more precise but that makes such "collateral damage" even more unacceptable. It's at the point where you can kill people from the other side of the world without any warning or chance of retaliation, if that person in an air-force base in the U.S decides to kill you, they can do so without any legal or violent repercussions [QUOTE=acds;35024690] And how would direct conflict be any better than terrorism? As you said yourself, they resort to terrorism because they don't have the weaponry to wage a conventional war. Would it be better if they just attacked conventionally? No, it'd be worse. [/QUOTE] I never said it would, if they had any sort of comparable military strength there would be some room for negotiations but since people feel powerless they get desperate and resort to such tactics, as it stands the U.S wont negotiate with terrorists and therefore the terrorists will continue on their current path because they see it as their only option, better to be hated than ignored. My point was in response to your comment that the latest weapons are being used to combat terrorism, when that's just not the case. The only way to stop terror tactics is through negotiating with people, not treating the symptoms but the root cause. [QUOTE=acds;35024690] Again, how is it bad that they have to resort to terrorism instead of crossing the border with tanks and bombarding cities? WTC was a very small death toll when compared to what bombarding a city would cause (see Dresden, and back then we didn't even have a tenth of the firepower we have now).[/QUOTE] I'm saying both are bad, it's just that most groups don't have any power of influence to negotiate in a conventional manner and that is why terrorist attacks are their only option. I think you have this wrong, I'm not arguing that everyone should get the most advanced weapons, I'm saying that the design and sale of more destructive, technologically advanced weapons does nothing but cause death, and that profiting off avoidable death is unjustifiable.
You know, some weapons manufacturers were thinking about including a failsafe on a policeman's fire arm. The gun wouldn't shoot unless the policeman's biometrics matched the ones stored on the gun. Also a taser gun now includes an extra feature: When the taser is fired, thousands of small paper tickets shoot out with the electrodes. The taser's serial number is on the tickets. This deters criminals from using tasers.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35024432]So it's okay to sell Rohypnol to a convicted rapist? After all, you can't be held morally responsible for what he does with it after the transaction.[/QUOTE] rohypnol isn't a weapon and of course it isn't ok to sell weapons to a convicted rapist
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35024432] Do the benefits of the new technology enable the millions of deaths that have been enabled by advancing weapons technology over time? I think I'd prefer people didn't have to die just so I can buy a GPS system or fly on a 747 with a turbine engine.[/QUOTE] So you mean to tell me that if you could, you would go back in time to stop the development of the jet engine and GPS guidance if it meant sparing the lives of the people killed by jet powered military aircraft and GPS guided munitions? We'd be in the stone age if we didnt have the tech that military research has given us
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.