Personally, it should not negatively impact lives. For example, I can't see myself saying "I will take this job for the money, and the gun I help engineered is used to kill humans during combat".
I don't work in the field and don't know exactly how I'd personally feel about it, but I can see a very strong argument that even one of the most heinous weapons every deployed on Earth likely saved a net million-plus lives.
If that is the case, is it moral to refuse to work on the Manhattan Project if asked?
(I also agree that working on the next generation of the atomic bomb or the next revision of the M16/AK47 does not hold the same promise of saving lives, of course...)
There is. It's a solved problem. The only issue is lack of info (many evil people vs 1 good) but most people get stuck because of a "no compromises" attitude and lack of will to make that decision.
Modern society has already made the choice though. We sacrifice a few for the many all the time, and they are called heros and duly celebrated.
>One of the most heinous weapons every deployed on Earth likely saved a net million-plus lives.
It's really an argument that can't be made because the other event never happened. The weapon killed people, that's it. I don't know if there's a moral side at all?
The projections for the invasion of Japan during WWII were that there would be millions of casualties. The battles in the Pacific were some of the most fiercely fought of the war, and invading Japan would have been even more so.
Agree you should not work for something that is not align with your moral and personal believe, as for me I can totally see myself saying "I will take this job for the money, and the gun I help engineered is used to kill humans during combat".
