Philosophy Now Forum

Hypothetical scenario:

You need a job and you have three offers:

- A bread factory
- A surgical instruments factory
- A munitions factory (land mines)

All else being equal, the pay in the munitions factory is double of what you would make at the other places.

Which job would you take?

I don't like having money I can't feel good about. It wouldn't had been worth it.

Obviously the munitions factory, as long as they plant all the sample test pieces in Norway. After all there's nothing to loose there, especially in Oslo.

thedoc wrote:Obviously the munitions factory, as long as they plant all the sample test pieces in Norway. After all there's nothing to loose there, especially in Oslo.

^^

Why don't you like Oslo?

Interesting that you doubled the salary in the munitions factory.

That indicates that you think that landmines are inherently immoral.

What if the salary is exactly the same? Is a person who chooses to work in the factory immoral?

I don't think so.

phyllo wrote:Is a person who chooses to work in the factory immoral? I don't think so.

I guess it depends on your definition of 'moral'.

(Just in case you missed it: the factory was manufacturing land mines. Just Google "landmines and children" for more data).

Is it the person who manufactures the land mine, or the person who plants it where it will kill or maim those other than military targets?

(Just in case you missed it: the factory was manufacturing land mines. Just Google "landmines and children" for more data).

No, I didn't miss that fact.

The purpose of landmines is not to kill children. That's an unfortunate side effect.

Children are also killed in car accidents. Is it unethical to work in a car factory? No.

I guess it depends on your definition of 'moral'.

I have an idea of what moral and immoral means. What's your definition?

phyllo wrote:That's an unfortunate side effect.

Quite until your own child is the victim. Then it is a tragedy, contributed to by those who manufactured the damn thing.

My own morality does not include the line: "The end justifies the means".

Quite until your own child is the victim. Then it is a tragedy, contributed to by those who manufactured the damn thing.

That is a tragedy but I don't blame the manufacturer.
The landmine was produced for a specific purpose which I agreed with.

My own morality does not include the line: "The end justifies the means".

The end justifies some means but not any and all means. That's the point of morality and ethics... figuring out which ends are justified and which means are appropriate to attain those ends.

Or, you could look at it from another angle.

If nobody does, than the cycle of violence will continue forever, as it has been for thousands of years.

Here is another angle:

Fair Trade

In wars
we trade with the enemy:
left arm for a right eye,
burnt face for a kidney,
orphans for orphans,…
it’s not always a fair trade
but the one who was counting
is already dead.

It’s all so practical,
supply lines for
our tools:
shells, bullets,
gas for our trucks, tanks,
and our flame throwers too...
paper clips, pencils, official forms
that need to be filled in
with the names of the dead.

Surgeons operate
on conveyor belt
of young people,
so full of blood…
and we don’t always have
the right kind
to fill them up,
help them to kill
more boys,
on the wrong side,
heroic dead.

Our pilots drop bombs
on your village,
in exchange for the same...
our wives will weep for us,
answered by the sobbing
of your loved ones,
back where you have been
dragged from, or duped,
to come here,
to be crippled or dead.

When it’s all over
with nothing accomplished,
our leaders will make
noble speeches
while wreaths will be hung
over crosses in neat rows
in white forests,
flags draped over caskets,
and the heroic wool
over stupid, stupid, gullible minds,
lamenting the fate
of the glorious dead.

I know about the horrors of war.

I also know about the horrors of subjugation.

I have no desire to have my children suffer under a Taliban, Nazi or Khmer Rouge overlord.

That's why I thank all those who fought for our freedoms. That's why we still need to build weapons.

When nobody will use force to dominate another, then we can pound the swords into plowshares.

phyllo wrote:When nobody will use force to dominate another...

So, who will be the one to stop first? ("What if they called a war and nobody came?")

Here is another angle:

Hate and Compassion

We may think our hate avenges some victim,
rights some wrong,
balances an evil,
we may believe our cause is just
and we have to hurt those back
who hurt us.

But, sooner or later,
we grow tired of anger and hate
(it takes so much out of us)
and search for redeeming factors,
excuses and circumstances
to spare us the tear and wear
of destructive emotions.

Admit it, old chap,
you have slowed down, mellowed,
do everything now with new-found moderation:
your love is a warm, autumn glow,
your appetite is not ravenous,
and your capacity for hate
is seriously diminished.

Now you make excuses
for villains you hated before,
you tell yourself:
we are all victims here,
one way or another,
there is no original sin -
we were all dear babies once.

Luck influences who you’ve become:
smart or stupid,
healthy or sick,
good or evil -
something must have made you one
or the other -
we must never stop thinking
of causes and effects.

If you can maintain this vision,
this tolerance, this understanding,
then your anger yields to pity, sorrow
for all victims of the human condition -
your heart will find peace
in serenity, acceptance,
compassion.

But, alas,
so many of us can not forgive,
piling pain upon pain,
death upon death...
...victims victimizing,
infinitely, relentlessly,
and thus hate is perpetuated
until love has finally lost,
until hate has consumed all its fuel:
the last of us.

So, who will be the one to stop first?

You can have weapons and choose not to use them in aggression.
If everyone takes that attitude, then the weapons become a useless expense and eventually people will stop making them.