Article: With White House Push, U.S. Arms Sales Jump
published on 13.09.2008
by s674994
The United States are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, arms exporter in the world. They sell the most advanced and deadliest weapons to for example to Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran. The American weapon industry is an important domestic source of profit and employment.
In my opinion this is a moral hard case. A moral hard case is a situation in which a good moral reason speaks in favour of the case and a good moral reason speaks against the case. In the example mentioned above there are two of such opposing reasons. On the one hand you have the importance that the weapons industry has for the United States’ income, but more importantly the many people that are working in this sector. This is a huge economic moral reason to keep proceeding with this enormous weapon exporting industry. On the other hand it is immoral to supply human beings with objects which make it easier to kill or threaten other human beings. This is really not defending human right and freedom, as the United States claim to do.
In my opinion the United States should give up this export and replace this by a more humane industry to employ the people currently active in the weapons sector. Because this is obviously morally speaking the only important reason to support this industry.
People who support the U.S. sales say that “weapons make the world a safer place”, but this is not logical. We have the nature to follow “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”. So violence, or a threat of violence, provokes an equal reaction.
Link to the lecture:
Moral hard case
18 comments:
by 876767
I agree with that the American weapon industry is involved in a moral hard case. However I think further specification need to be add. Selling weapons to the state police in Afghanistan who insures security is, to me, not a moral hard case. A complete stop of exports would not be profitable for anyone. However a strict and serious "client" selection may be more appropriate.
When considering the weapon industry as a whole, one can easily come to the conclusion that the manufacturing of weapons can never be justified. Not only because of the sole purpose weapons serve, but also because of the threat of force weapons symbolize.
However, the situation in which the United States indeed cease exporting weapons to foreign countries should be considered. What would happen then? It is fairly obvious that if the US will not come through with delivering weaponry, somebody else will. Whether this is a country or an organization or simply one person does not matter, selling weaponry is business and business means profit.
We could even take the discussion a little bit further. In an ideal world, where there are no wars to fight, no issues to resolve, weapons would become redundant. Sadly, such an idealistic view collides with reality in which weapons apparently remain a necessity.
René Megens
s113313
American weapon industry is definitely a moral hard case. on one hand, this industry creates much needed employment for the people, and get more profit for business and economy. It's a morally right action. On the other hand, producing and exporting weapons could threaten other human beings, against people's moral right to live and the right of freedom.
But in reality, where there is a need, there must be a market (supply), as endless conflicts are existing all over the world, and people don't have other more rational ways to solve them, weapons are needed, the market is existing, and American weapon industry will not stop producing and exporting them.
By:
Zhe Gong
s479253
The issue of the American arms export is double-sided. We definately need to consider the alternative of this practice. Many nations require arms from one source or another. The reasons can be to equip their military, to fight rebels, or to wage war with neighboring states. If the American monitored export is removed, many nations will be unable to resist rebel groups or stronger neighbour nations. The weapon export is a political weapon to maintain an American determined world order. We must ask ourselves whether taking away this tool will cause considerable suffering and chaos. We could go as far by stating that America has a moral obligation to consider the consequences of suddenly stopping their supply of weapons to honest people who defend themselves by it.
In my opinion even if the US would not sell weapons to those countries, they will still try to find weapons somewhere else. Plus the US is not the only one who sell weapon to make money and spread their power across the world, like EU, China are all doing the same thing. By now the weapon selling haven't make any extra problems, so there is no reason to stop it.
By 347055
I think you are right when you say that this is a moral hard case. But when America would stop exporting or producing because of the moral reason that they want do reduce the chance of people getting harmed by certain weapons, i think this is not very reasonable. Since they are just moving the problem/moral blame to anoter country that is willing to producs those waepons; because it is still a very profitable industry. It will not reduce the amount of waepons in the world and a lot of employees will lose their jobs.
For these reasons I think it does not make sense to stop exporting or producing waepons till their is a good foundation for a world without waepons. Otherwise they are just moving the problem elsewhere in the world.
I also agree with the fact that this is a moral hard case.
On the one hand it goes against morality since the market is providing a product which can harm/kill human beings.
This goes against 'Right' since a human being has the right to live.
On the other hand, it creates a large number of jobs, and huge amounts of profits.
But finding a solution for this problem might be a difficult task since, like many of you are claiming, an idealistic world without weapens, wars and hate is just out of reach at this moment.
Even if the United States of America stops exporting/selling weapons, it will not bring a solution since many individuals are in 'need' of this product and if they can't get this on the market, they will try to get it anyhow. Maybe from a, like they call it,'underground market'.
It clearly shows that this situation is a moral hard case, so plainly spoken a two-sided knife.
A complete halt of exporting weapons does not solve the consequential problems.
The US companies have good moral reasons not to stop manufacturing and exporting their weapons since they add value in several terms to society domestically, for instance employment.
On the other hand vast amount of evidence suggest that their products are not only used to prevent but also to commit crime which gives good moral reason to stop exporting weapons to countries in which that primarily happens.
A perfect solution cannot be found in my opinion but at least more effort can be put into the surveillance of the distribution. The responsibility should cover as far as to sub-purchasers, which of course is not as easy as I suggest.
Robert Janssen
126601
I do not think this is a Moral Hard cse. This is a problem of moral motivation, the 2 most important arguments that are put up are the job loss and the "greater safety" that the world is in because of these weapons, i will tackle both problems seperatelly,
problem 1, loss of jobs: in America loss of jobs is not a major problem, also most people working in these industry's are highly qualified and will have little problem finding a new job. Also unemployement benefits can be taken care of by the government.
problem 2: the world is safer with more weapons, all evidence points to the contrary, look at the death rates (safety) in the US where everybody has availability to weapons and compare it to death rates in europe where availabilty of weapons is much lower. Availability of weapons is dirrecly corrolated with an increase in homicide.
Now that we have cleared the "moral arguments" it is clearelly visible that these 2 argumenst do not weigh up to human loss of life and years of continuing blodshed, iraq, afganistan, russian provinces. (all imported weapons)
This is thus a clear problem of moral motivations by the US.
Reply to 701304:
Your made a comment that seems to support stringent gun control in the US. The argument that high gun availability in the US is responsible for the high amount of gun crime is illogical. I believe that criminally minded and/or low IQ people mostly determine the amount of gun crime.
Switzerland has the third highest gun ownership rate in the world. Almost all adult males are legally required to possess an assault rifle. The country has virtually no gun crime. But, Switzerland is not swamped with illegal immigrants from third world and crime ridden countries. The US is.
You mentioned that when weapons are not available, weapon crimes decrease. Here is a real-life example of how this is not true:
I live in a country that 16 years ago was a very safe place. Today, it is full of violent crime. What changed? Not gun laws: it was and is difficult to legally obtain a gun. What changed was the massive influx of illegal immigrants from what is termed ‘the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere’: Haiti. The U.S. Department of State claims “there are no safe areas in Haiti”.
Infiltration of these illegal immigrants, with a high proportion of criminally minded people in their midst, and stocked with illegal weapons, is the recipe for gun crime.
Gun crime is not based on gun availability. Criminals can always obtain their illegal weapons. But making legal gun ownership difficult only guarantees one thing: the criminal will be much safer when out hunting “good citizens”. Now, what is the victim supposed to do? Fight back with a broom?
472798
by s550160
I do agree that the case presented is a moral hard case. I also want to add that the weapon industry is needed for the USA not only for the economic and employment reasons, but also for keeping power and hegemony in the world. That's why during the Cold War the USA and the USSR were so crazy about having the leading weapon industries - to keep the power. The will for power is not as moral as providing people with jobs and keeping the industry going, which is suggested by the author as one of the moral arguments. Will for hegemony and being a leading country in the world is another immoral reason the US weapon industry has. Moreover, the USA should be more selective not only to the foreign countries, but also to their own country and be stricter on who has the right to purchase weapons, so to prevent such tragic cases as in Virginia Tech.
by 308963
The USA has always been a country that has revolved around revolvers. About 2/3 of the adult population owns a firearm. Why? Because 2/3 of the adult population owns a firearm and you have to protect yourself and your family against them. I am in no way justifying this reason. However it already has a foundation and it’s unlikely that it will change. If a gun producer decides to stop selling firearms it will not stop the 'clients' from obtaining firearms. So, stopping the production/selling of firearms will not change. The big moral issue here in my opinion is that nearly everyone can afford firearms and can obtain them everywhere. For example, a lot of wall-mart’s still sell bullets. Probably right next to the other “killing machine”: Cigarettes.
Maybe Chris Rock was right and “bullet control” should be applied and each bullet should cost 10.000 dollars
My 2 cents
Kamran van Roosmalen
s308963
As for America providing firearms to foreign countries I believe that it should be allowed to aid a struggling country that is being invaded, however there are situations where the only goal of this is making profits:
The USA as a 'major member of the UN' does provide weaponry to 2 parties that are on war with each other. During the war between Iraq and Iran that lasted through the eighties, in which Iraq tried to invade Iran after the Islamic revolution (1979), America has provided weaponry to both sides on one point especially to Iraq because the USA “could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran"-Reagan
Iraq had been using chemical weaponry and Iran is one of the countries most severely afflicted by WMD’s. And the United States happened to be the only member who voted against the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which condemns the use of Chemical weapons.
Kamran van Roosmalen
308963
Good day !.
might , probably curious to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no initial capital needed You may begin to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The company incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with affiliates around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your choice That`s what you really need!
I`m happy and lucky, I started to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct partner utilizes your funds in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I make 2G daily, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://jykywyfu.freecities.com/ahylyt.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to feel the smell of real money
Hi !.
You re, I guess , perhaps very interested to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no initial capital needed You may begin earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
The firm incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with offices around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!
I feel good, I began to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to select a correct companion utilizes your funds in a right way - that`s it!.
I make 2G daily, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://adohyweca.jamminweb.com/mewijaw.html
and go! Let`s take this option together to become rich
Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of troubles when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in large initial investment.
Now, I'm happy and lucky , I started to get real money.
It's all about how to select a proper partner who uses your money in a right way - that is incorporate it in real deals, parts and divides the income with me.
You can ask, if there are such firms? I have to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]
Good night!
by u1234010
I think American weapon industry is facing a moral hard case. On the one hand, the weapon industry valued at 37.8 billion dollars in 2008 as the biggest arms industry in the world, which brings a lot of fortune and offers great opportunities of jobs the United States. On the other hand, we should definitly avoid to do the things that would threaten the life of human beings. Discuss from the Right perspective, USA should stop this industry since it violate the Right to live.
Some solutions should be found here. In my opinion, it's rational for people to maximizing their profit. And I agree with s347055, it not make sense if just one country like USA to stop weapon produce and export. I think some strict rules should be set up to limit this industry. And the situation like clients are reliable or long term relationship, could find substitutes products in other countries, or products already have widely used in non-military usage. It could be allowed to export.
Post a Comment