A philosophical debate - Tools

A couple of weeks ago I engaged in a philosophical conversation with a dear friend of mine regarding tools of society. We tried to approach the matter philosophically in order to understand the nature of differents kinds of tools humans use. In other words, we tried to find out whether a tool (for example, a gun) is tottaly neutral on its own, or if it is functional and benevolent for society or the exact opposite.

We decided to refer to guns and money as tools, since they are the most controversial tools human kind possesses.
The debate went on and on by presenting examples and we finally agreed that we disagreed.

My friend insisted that tools depend on the nature of the person using them.
If the person has intentions that a particular society considers to be beneficial, then a gun (or money) in his hands becomes a tool promoting wellfare and proggress in that society. If, on the other hand, the person has intentions that are in conflict with the principles of that particular society, then the tool becomes dysfuctional and problematic. He therefore reffered to the necessity of a gun in order to stop the malevolent intents of that specific person, again presenting the tool as a neutral factor in society.

On the other hand, I insisted that every tool is made for a specific cause, but many tools are made in order to bring out malevolent actions. I said that humans are both "evil" and "good", and a gun or too much money will eventually corupt them, bringing out their "evil" self, thus endangering social wellfare. I concluded that guns are made to kill, and whether that action is considered acceptable in a society, it is always dysfuctional. Hence the very nature of some tools is malevolent.

Since we both knew that in such a conversation noone is right and noone is wrong, and since we couldnt aggree, we decided to halt the conversation.



I'd like to read your thoughts on the nature of some tools (or maybe every tool) in human society in general. If you feel like using religious and ethical reasons to support your statements, please do so.

 

Yes, but according to my friend's way of thinking, in many societies killing wasn't a malevolent act. That is probably why he stated that it depends on the social context, hence its nature is neutral towards society.

 

Yes. He provided many examples. Ancient Sparta, where in order for a Spartan to be considered an adult, he had to kill a slave in a way that the others wouldnt find out, to prove his cunning and ability to fight.

I can think of others though.The case of public executions in middle ages was also considered a festival in England and France. Even though it was not a weapon that killed them, those killings were tottaly acceptable and without any form of opposition. The point being that if the person being killed is considered "evil", then his death by force is not considered malevolent. After the French revolution thousands were murdered without any penalty since they were considered that they were the kings men.

I replied to him that even though those killings were socially acceptable, they were still dysfuctional, since they created huge hatred dividing society, and thus halting its progress and wellfare. In other words, that the weapons may have been used to kill in an acceptable social context, but they still served only to halt for social progress and probably against the wellfare of society.

He then replied that the term " wellfare " must be used within the social needs of the age that the weapon is used. He argued, that the French revolutionaries considered those people to be evil, and hence using the weapons (which he considers to be neutral) in an malevolent way they killed for what they considered to be a "better future".

I don't remember what was said after that. But the conversation continued.

 

I wouldnt say that thats a moral issue. We were arguing about the nature of tools in a social context, on the basis that social wellfare and proggress is the goal of every society. We didnt ecxactly speak about morality in general.According to me some tools are created only to create problems to society, while he says that every tool depends on the user to be used in a benevolent way or a malevolent way.

 

I tottaly agree with you. But I think this conversation had to do more with fuctionality rather than morality. I'm not sure though. What do you think about tools(or guns if you prefer)?

 

Yes, but couldnt we say that those very tools tempt humans to use violence and be corrupted? It begun just as you said, but later on didn't those tools start to have a negative influence on society, just because they existed?
In other words, If I had a gun, and someone did something to me that I considered terrible (ex. killed a friend), would not the desire to kill that person become greater than if I had no such tool in my hands?

I don't know If you understand what I'm trying to say. My English is not so good.