Potential for evil is the same as evil?

Post Reply New Topic

A firearm has the potential to kill or murder. Murder is evil. A firearm has the potential for evil, so does that make a firearm evil in itself?

No, the firearm isn't evil. However, giving someone a firearm knowing that they would use it for an evil act is evil.

no more than a pile of rocks on a mountainside is evil, in that it could become an avalanche.
Evil is a commision (or omission) of a human act. Inanimate objects of themselves are not capable of being judges (well, enforced, at least...

Ah, but the act of killing is not an evil unto itself. It is considered moral to kill in the defense of another's life or self-preservation of one's own life.

Law says murder is a "mens rea" crime. Without either the intention to kill (or utter disregard for consequences...among with death of another is a foreseeable outcome), you can not be a murderer.

Killing isn't evil itself. Killing the innocent is evil. Killing the innocent is murder. Murder is evil.

Yes, but how would anyone know that if they did not seriously state that as their intention?
Because of those who would keep such intentions secret, should all be disarmed?
Does this limit itself to the populace, or in general to all who potentially could abuse power?

No, an inanimate object has no volition, merely uses. Only the user has potential.

Correct. The weapon has the potential to be used for evil. It is one of a set of possible applications.

Police officers are taught that you can kill a person with a river rock.

Therefore, all river rocks are evil.

Firearms are incapable of doing evil by and of themselves, but in the hands of people with evil intent they become dangerous tools; but, as zer0netgain said, so do rocks.

Well, your questions here are a *lot* deeper and different in nature than the original question. I mean, a major issue here is context, particularly given uncertainties with knowledge. I mean, let's say that you have a person who is foaming at the mouth and keeps on muttering under his breath "he'll get it now"? Well, it could be assumed this individual is perhaps deranged(foaming of the mouth and so on) and is likely to kill another person with this weapon, but of course it still cannot be known. However, to sell to this individual is generally not taking adequate precautions.

How about this situation: you are selling to a man a weapon that if used to harm others can do so incredibly effectively, to an extent that it would cause a significant number of deaths more than other comparable weapons. Do you need to be more or equally cautious with this transaction? Obviously more cautious.


Whether all should be disarmed depends on a number of factors:
1) How effectively could people be disarmed?
2) What are the effects of various stages of armedness in a population?
3) How much benefit do people get from owning guns(subjectively) and is this worth the trade off of removing them?

I think that some people claim that higher levels of armedness can actually increase defense by allowing for dangerous individuals to be dealt with quicker. Depending on the empirical data, one might be able to point to more optimal rates of armedness.


The analysis is pragmatic, I would think. So, the idea is to analyze the relative effectiveness of various distributions of guns in society, and of course, figure out which is optimal and in some sense aim for it. Perhaps not overtly aim for it, but seek it.

No. Evil is as it does, not as it might be.

If potential were evil, per se, then we are all evil. I deny this.

ruveyn

Yes, but the 9-11 principle of paranoia says that EVERYTHING can be used as a weapon and EVERYONE is suspect.


TRUST NO ONE!! !

Just about any tool that hurls projectiles or has a sharp edge or has a point or is sufficiently blunt and delse to break bone can be deployed to evil ends. The thing is not evil, but it could be used as an instrument of evil by being turned to an evil end.

Tools have no mind, but they do have capabilities.

ruveyn

I think killing another human being no matter what the reason is murder. That's why I see soldiers as murderers and not heroes. I hope that I will never have to end someone's else's life just to save my own or someone else, or because they simply p!ssed me off so horribly every moment had every nerve in my body throbbing with pure hate. I think the latter is more likely to come true.

A lot of ordinary household items can be used to murder people. Like kitchen knives or antifreeze that you can put in someone's Jello, which easily disguises the antifreeze's already non-offensive taste. So I guess a gun is no more evil than they are. But they're not intentionally made to hurt and kill people like guns, so I honestly don't know.

What about self defense or defense of family? Do you think someone out to kill you or yours has a greater right to exist than you do?

We all have the potential to be murderers but very few of us are. It is called self-control and there are people who can practice it.