Interested. Also interested in:

- the ethics of killing weapons researchers

- the ethics of killing charismatic peace activists

James,

Not at all sure how I'd feel about actually killing weapons researchers. I just like them to voluntarily stop what they are doing when they realise that it is morally wrong, and that the 'standard justification' in terms of defence does not stand up.

Sometimes people assassinate weapons researchers, such as nuclear weapons researchers. Should steps be taken to stop this? Should such assassins be tracked down and punished?

Very interested. My MA Psych research (at Catholic U., following a BA Psych at Georgetown U.) was in killology, the act of a human being killing another human being in any context (soldier in war, mother defending family, police officer preventing crime, criminal committing murder, executioner for the state killing a condemned prisoner, fatal but unintentional traffic accident, etc).

I have also devoted my life to martial arts training and the study of aggression and violence.

My question for you: what do you think the moral / ethical issues are in weapons research?

Again, I've considered killing anyone. To answer Janine, I believe it can be shown that weapons research is morally wrong because if introduces new ways of harming which the researcher cannot know will be used in permissible ways. For instance, one may think that it is permissible to harm to prevent other harms, typically in self or other defence. But weapons research, by its nature, cannot be guaranteed to produce weapons that are only used to defend innocent people. Lots more on this in my publications on this site...

But what of discoveries / inventions that have "good" purposes as well as "bad"? What of an invention that kills as well as saves lives?

Does the tool itself have a moral status or is morality in the wielder of the tool?

(In case you couldn't tell, I haven't read the papers you've posted. I will over the next few days)

Janine,

I don't claim arefacts like weapons have any moral standing - some of the 'new school' of the philosophy of technology coming out of The Netherlands for instance make that claim, but I don't. I claim that if one introduces new ways of harming into the world, then one must be assured that they will be used for "good" purposes only, or that the good outweighs the bad according to some standard. I argue that cannot be the case. Just think of some examples: the atomic bomb was supposed to deter the Nazis, but was used on Japanese civilians, the Mauser rifle was intended for the Prussian Army and was used the the Einsatzgruppen in the Soviet Union, the Ak-47 was supposed to protect the Motherland, and the list goes on and on

I've been studying some questions regarded to moral/ethics on drones strikes, and trying to relate it with the idea of Virtuous War... there are some findings already, but I would appreciate some help!

Thanks for the topic

Weapon researches are devoid of morality. In fact, not morality but mortality would be a better word here to be considered.

What would you say to/about those who work in armour (development)?

I'd say the armour development guys are weapons researchers as much as the guys who make the guns to go on tank turrets, etc. (sorry for the delay in answering your worthwhile question).