The fewer weapons that people make for them, the fewer weapons they will have that they can use to kill brown people with. Therefore there is a clear line of cause and effect between making weapons for them and brown people dying. Therefore, the people making those weapons have caused harm, and would deserve to go to Hell if it existed.
This is all very straightforward, I still have no idea what you’re confused about.
It’s really not that complicated. We have two “issues”.
Engineers making weapons
Weapons being used to kill innocent people.
There is an easy solution to both: don’t make weapons. That’s a stupid solution because if your country doesn’t have any weapons it will be invaded by other country and innocent people will die.
You know this easy solution is stupid so you say we should only “reduce” the number of weapons. But this doesn’t solve any issues. Engineers still make weapons and those weapons can still be used to kill innocent people. You just saved some money which is completely different topic entirely.
So now you’re stuck in a loop claiming that your stupid solution will solve issue 2 (which it won’t) while ignoring issue 1 entirely.
The real “solution” is to not use weapons to kill innocent people. “Issue” 1 is not an issue at all. Engineers making weapons are necessary. “Issue” 2 has to be solved by the entire country by electing better politicians. Engineers don’t have more power here than farmers or doctors.
You’re saying, “a just society would need engineers to build weapons, to be used for defense, therefore, it is right for engineers to build weapons in an unjust society where they will be used for offense.” That does not follow at all. That’s like seeing a car stalled out in the middle of an intersection and saying, “A functional intersection would need me to go when the light is green, therefore, I should keep driving forward. The problem is the car in the intersection, someone needs to fix that, and I don’t need to change my behavior even if it’s going to lead to people dying, because I’m acting in a way that would be appropriate in a functioning intersection.”
That’s not how morality, reason, or anything else works. You have to look at the world as it actually exists and look at the predictable consequences of your actions in the actually existing world.
Again, I will return to the unanswered point from before, about how far you’re willing to extend this line of logic, whether you think it was morally neutral to manfacture Panzers and Zyklon B for the Nazis.
Your position is completely indefensible and untenable. You called me childish, when you’re refusing to acknowledge and adapt to the real world.
I can see that. Let me explain that in even simpler way.
You say:
Me: Making guns.
You: “Engineers making guns bad! Make less guns!”
Me: Make 1 gun instead of 3.
US Army: Take 1 gun and kill brown children.
You: “Engineers making guns bad!”
I say:
Me: Making guns.
US Army: Takes guns and kills brown people.
Me: Army bad!
P.S. I don’t work for arms company. I was just making a point.
The fewer guns they have the fewer brown people they’re able to kill. Obviously.
Obviously.
The fewer weapons that people make for them, the fewer weapons they will have that they can use to kill brown people with. Therefore there is a clear line of cause and effect between making weapons for them and brown people dying. Therefore, the people making those weapons have caused harm, and would deserve to go to Hell if it existed.
This is all very straightforward, I still have no idea what you’re confused about.
It’s really not that complicated. We have two “issues”.
There is an easy solution to both: don’t make weapons. That’s a stupid solution because if your country doesn’t have any weapons it will be invaded by other country and innocent people will die.
You know this easy solution is stupid so you say we should only “reduce” the number of weapons. But this doesn’t solve any issues. Engineers still make weapons and those weapons can still be used to kill innocent people. You just saved some money which is completely different topic entirely.
So now you’re stuck in a loop claiming that your stupid solution will solve issue 2 (which it won’t) while ignoring issue 1 entirely.
The real “solution” is to not use weapons to kill innocent people. “Issue” 1 is not an issue at all. Engineers making weapons are necessary. “Issue” 2 has to be solved by the entire country by electing better politicians. Engineers don’t have more power here than farmers or doctors.
That’s complete nonsense.
You’re saying, “a just society would need engineers to build weapons, to be used for defense, therefore, it is right for engineers to build weapons in an unjust society where they will be used for offense.” That does not follow at all. That’s like seeing a car stalled out in the middle of an intersection and saying, “A functional intersection would need me to go when the light is green, therefore, I should keep driving forward. The problem is the car in the intersection, someone needs to fix that, and I don’t need to change my behavior even if it’s going to lead to people dying, because I’m acting in a way that would be appropriate in a functioning intersection.”
That’s not how morality, reason, or anything else works. You have to look at the world as it actually exists and look at the predictable consequences of your actions in the actually existing world.
Again, I will return to the unanswered point from before, about how far you’re willing to extend this line of logic, whether you think it was morally neutral to manfacture Panzers and Zyklon B for the Nazis.
Your position is completely indefensible and untenable. You called me childish, when you’re refusing to acknowledge and adapt to the real world.