[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35025033]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]
There is also the difference that while the weapons do indeed kill people, it's not a bad thing. Again, killing someone that brandishes a gun against you is not an immoral thing. Your analogy would fit a street seller that sells guns to thugs, not a contractor that makes weapons for governments.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35025033]
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]
Collateral damage today is tiny compared to WW2, and it has become smaller because of weaponry advancing, if it hadn't we'd have a lot more collateral damage. Also "without repercussions"? Hardly, in fact there are much harsher repercussions nowadays for wanton slaughter than there where before (media shitstorms come to mind).
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35025033]
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.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35025033]
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]
Except that if the terrorists had military strength, they'd be another bloodthirsty dictator. Lots of countries manage without much military and don't resort to terrorism, terrorists don't want peace, they want to cause death. If you give them a gun they'll shoot you with it, not suddenly start negotiating. People that would gladly bomb a school full of children aren't the kind of people that would be responsible when in a position of power.
You might say they are misunderstood and that they are forced to do what they do, but they aren't. No-one is forcing them to bomb innocents and when they still do, they deserve that bomb that drops on them.
The root cause of terrorism is the human nature. Humans always want more power, be it in form of money, control (religion, politics, whatever) or resources. If we all had an equal amount of wealth, someone would take the opportunity to take someone else's wealth. We work like that, if we all were living in peace, there would still be some shitheads (in this case the terrorists) that would want to gain more power by converting everyone to their belief (be it political or religious). Terrorism is just one method, if others were available they'd use those as well.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35025033]
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.[/QUOTE]
But then if we stopped supplying weapons and developing them, wouldn't the power balance just invert? There will [B]always[/B] be one (several actually) that do develop and supply weapons, hence why it's all a big race to keep up and surpass the other (who in turn does the same).
Sure weapons cause death, but they also save more than they kill by avoiding China marching into Russia to take the resources or Germany from liberating Norway from it's oil.
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;35026528]rohypnol isn't a weapon
and of course it isn't ok to sell weapons to a convicted rapist[/QUOTE]
It can potentially be used to cause harm to people,
how is it any different that selling weapons to a nation with a history of aggression?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;35031236]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[/QUOTE]
Yes I would, I don't have the right to decide what someone else's life is worth, and neither does anyone else (Beyond perhaps if a greater number of people are saved).
And I was more referring to the work camps used by the Germans in their rocket programs (Enabling the development of modern rocketry and hence, GPS) than the deaths caused by modern military aircraft.
Would you agree to die from starvation so that future nations can guide their missiles by satellite or so people can drive their cars without needing maps? Would it be okay to condemn someone else to that fate?
[QUOTE=acds;35034492]There is also the difference that while the weapons do indeed kill people, it's not a bad thing. Again, killing someone that brandishes a gun against you is not an immoral thing. Your analogy would fit a street seller that sells guns to thugs, not a contractor that makes weapons for governments.
[/QUOTE]
There is no difference, selling a gun to a drug-dealer is no different to selling a cruise missile to a government.
The drug-dealer may well be using it for protection and so could the government, the problem lies in the risk of those weapons being used for aggressive purposes.
The person who sells the guns is at least partly responsible for the damage those weapons do but chooses profit over the possible loss of lives, if I were to sell explosives to someone, no questions asked I would be arrested and imprisoned.
The only reason it is legal to sell high-end weaponry to governments is because those weapons benefit those with the power to change the laws (ie. the government and those with the power to influence it), there is no moral distinction between the two.
So if you believe it's immoral to sell guns to 'thugs' then there is no logical reason you should believe the arms industry is any different.
[QUOTE=acds;35034492]
Collateral damage today is tiny compared to WW2, and it has become smaller because of weaponry advancing, if it hadn't we'd have a lot more collateral damage. Also "without repercussions"? Hardly, in fact there are much harsher repercussions nowadays for wanton slaughter than there where before (media shitstorms come to mind).
[/QUOTE]
What about the weapons development prior to world war 2?
Bombers and artillery didn't just 'happen' someone invented them and as a result enabled such 'wanton slaughter'.
And in relation to harsh repercussions and 'media shitstorms' over civilian casualties, please give me at least one example of a drone pilot being tried for the deaths of civilians, because I certainly can't find any and plenty of people have been killed.
While some people may be punished that only occurs when a journalist uncovers such an event, only then does the military feel the need to investigate further.
It's reasonable to assume that most of these events are just brushed to the side and the perpetrators never tried.
[QUOTE=acds;35034492]
The root cause of terrorism is the human nature. Humans always want more power, be it in form of money, control (religion, politics, whatever) or resources. If we all had an equal amount of wealth, someone would take the opportunity to take someone else's wealth. We work like that, if we all were living in peace, there would still be some shitheads (in this case the terrorists) that would want to gain more power by converting everyone to their belief (be it political or religious). Terrorism is just one method, if others were available they'd use those as well.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not prepared to start arguing whether or not greed/desire for power is a fundamental part of human nature, that would take days and this is getting off topic as it is.
If we were all living in peace there would be no need for terrorism, but when the major powers in the world continue to exercise their military might on those less powerful the only response is to reciprocate that violence, and terrorism is arguably the most effective way to strike back.
[QUOTE=acds;35034492]
But then if we stopped supplying weapons and developing them, wouldn't the power balance just invert? There will [B]always[/B] be one (several actually) that do develop and supply weapons, hence why it's all a big race to keep up and surpass the other (who in turn does the same).
Sure weapons cause death, but they also save more than they kill by avoiding China marching into Russia to take the resources or Germany from liberating Norway from it's oil.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it's ever going to stop, like many problems in the world the advancement of weapons technology will continue on into the foreseeable future.
Your use of the word 'we' indicates that you aren't willing to making your own personal moral judgements.
Weapons don't save lives, they kill people, that's what they are designed to do.
They may be used in self-defense but you have to look at the issue as a whole, weapons regardless of who has them will result in more deaths than if there were no weapons, if China didn't have any weapons they couldn't invade Russia and Russia would have no need for weapons to defend themselves.
My point is that like many other problems (eg. Greed, Murder, Prostitution) just because it isn't going to stop doesn't make it morally justifiable.
It's unethical to commit murder, become a pimp or work towards your own self-interest at the expense of others regardless of what everyone else is doing.
Just because other are profiting off the death of others doesn't mean it's okay.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35036636]It can potentially be used to cause harm to people,
how is it any different that selling weapons to a nation with a history of aggression?[/QUOTE]
a nation is millions
a rapist is one
[quote]Yes I would, I don't have the right to decide what someone else's life is worth, and neither does anyone else[/quote]
What about the people whose lives have been saved by those technologies?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;35045108]What about the people whose lives have been saved by those technologies?[/QUOTE]
Without any definite knowledge of the future you are essentially gambling with other people's lives.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35064934]Without any definite knowledge of the future you are essentially gambling with other people's lives.[/QUOTE]
That's a fairly broad statement that applies to many things. Honestly, fuck everyone else, they can fight and kill each other for their stupid reasons, my people come first.
[QUOTE=The one that is;35065268]That's a fairly broad statement that applies to many things. Honestly, fuck everyone else, they can fight and kill each other for their stupid reasons, my people come first.[/QUOTE]
Care to put forward any argument to justify why 'your people' should come first?
Who qualifies as 'your people' for a start?
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35065903]Care to put forward any argument to justify why 'your people' should come first?
Who qualifies as 'your people' for a start?[/QUOTE]
My country, town, state, territory, possibly close allies.
Why? Because they are obviously more influential to my life than someone all the way across the Earth. It's like Vietnam, we were only there because of a supposed attack on our ships and because the French couldn't fight for shit there and all it did was hurt us at home, so why bother helping them when it hurts us? It sound selfish, but honestly the world doesn't look at anything we do for the greater good as good, they find ways to demonize it, the easy solution, to hell with everyone, be selfish.
[QUOTE=The one that is;35068873]My country, town, state, territory, possibly close allies.
Why? Because they are obviously more influential to my life than someone all the way across the Earth. It's like Vietnam, we were only there because of a supposed attack on our ships and because the French couldn't fight for shit there and all it did was hurt us at home, so why bother helping them when it hurts us? It sound selfish, but honestly the world doesn't look at anything we do for the greater good as good, they find ways to demonize it, the easy solution, to hell with everyone, be selfish.[/QUOTE]
Okay they influence your life more, why is your life worth more than other peoples?
That supposed attack was fabricated by your countrymen so you should reconsider whether or not you should be commenting on the french.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35064934]Without any definite knowledge of the future you are essentially gambling with other people's lives.[/QUOTE]
You didn't answer the question.
If you went back and stopped the development of weapons-related technologies like GPS, you would be essentially killing the people who's lived were saved by it, which seems pretty inconsistent with your argument.
[quote]Okay they influence your life more, why is your life worth more than other peoples?[/quote]
We inherently value our lives more than other peoples, its part of having self-preservation instincts.
[quote]Care to put forward any argument to justify why 'your people' should come first?[/quote]
Because humans value people they know and love higher than, say, random people. We aren't some hivemind dedicated to the good of the whole, we are a competitive species.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;35072897]You didn't answer the question.
If you went back and stopped the development of weapons-related technologies like GPS, you would be essentially killing the people who's lived were saved by it, which seems pretty inconsistent with your argument.
[/QUOTE]
I would also be saving the lives of those killed by that technology and in the realm of military weaponry I'd wager that's a lot more people than GPS has saved since it's inception.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;35072897]
We inherently value our lives more than other peoples, its part of having self-preservation instincts.
[/QUOTE]
We've essentially discarded our instincts a long time ago, just because something is natural doesn't make it morally acceptable or ethical, would it be okay for every man in a relationship with a woman who has children to kill the children from a previous relationship?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;35072897]
Because humans value people they know and love higher than, say, random people. We aren't some hivemind dedicated to the good of the whole, we are a competitive species.[/QUOTE]
You say humans value those that they know/love higher than random people, that's a fairly broad generalisation of the nearly 10 billion people on the planet.
I see no reason to do so beyond redundant, animal instincts. How do you explain adoption using your 'instincts' argument?
Whether you like it or not humans have become self-aware and aren't as simply categorized in their behaviour and value as wolves, we have developed reason and logic to steer away from our basic instincts.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;35076275]I would also be saving the lives of those killed by that technology and in the realm of military weaponry I'd wager that's a lot more people than GPS has saved since it's inception.
We've essentially discarded our instincts a long time ago, just because something is natural doesn't make it morally acceptable or ethical, would it be okay for every man in a relationship with a woman who has children to kill the children from a previous relationship?
You say humans value those that they know/love higher than random people, that's a fairly broad generalisation of the nearly 10 billion people on the planet.
I see no reason to do so beyond redundant, animal instincts. How do you explain adoption using your 'instincts' argument?
Whether you like it or not humans have become self-aware and aren't as simply categorized in their behaviour and value as wolves, we have developed reason and logic to steer away from our basic instincts.[/QUOTE]
It is, however, impossible to deny that there is a human nature and we can't overcome that nature. I do think humans have a tendency to war. In fact, almost every living thing will 'fight', in one way or another, to obtain resources for living.
And no, reason and logic is not the main thing that draws us away from being wolves, it's moral consciousness.
If you make a weapon that isn't reliable, then you are a bad person.
[QUOTE=matsta;35087420]It is, however, impossible to deny that there is a human nature and we can't overcome that nature. I do think humans have a tendency to war. In fact, almost every living thing will 'fight', in one way or another, to obtain resources for living.
And no, reason and logic is not the main thing that draws us away from being wolves, it's moral consciousness.[/QUOTE]
Why is that impossible to deny, why can't we overcome that nature?
Look at pacifists, they've effectively overcome humanity's natural inclination towards war so there is no reason to assume we can't change other aspects of our nature as well.
(That's assuming human actually do have a natural tendency towards violence and conflict, which isn't necessarily the case.)
Moral conciousness is a consequence of viewing the world in a rational, logical way. Without the objective view of the world this type of thinking affords, the question of ethics would never arise.
by making more reliable/better weapons, you're decreasing the random aspect of warfare, yes?
Hopefully that will allow more precision in engagements, and less loss of life.
Imagine what the early gulf war would've been like with only dumb bombs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.