Disassembling the Morality of the Gun
In the midst of tragedy the debate rages: Is it the person or the technology that we are to blame? Whether we’re talking about cell phones, social media, or firearms, the debate is the same. We either want to blame the technology or we want to blame the people using the tech — mostly because we hate gray areas.
So does the tech (the gun) have morality? Or is the tech always blamelessly dependent on the person using it?
Let’s disassemble this a bit:
First, hopefully we can agree that there is no technology without us. Technology is an extension of humanity into the world; either to adapt ourselves to the world, or to make it adapt to us. It is therefore purposefully made as an extension of us… And while we can always adapt technology (inventors as we are) for purposes other than their initial intent, technology is first built with a purpose. It has a function and a form. And that purpose is what helps us define it in the first place.
For example, a pencil is built with the purpose of writing. It’s function is to write and its form can take on many varieties within the general: writing part (graphite), surrounded by holding part (wood), sometimes accompanied by an erasing part. From the classic test-taking #2, to the giant fun gag gift, to the practical mechanical variety, the pencil can appear in many forms, be built out of different materials, but serves the same purpose. If it varies too far from its general function or form, we start to wonder if we can still call it a pencil at all or what its purpose might be.
But wait! Somebody could take a pencil and use it to put their hair into a bun. What about that? Yes, inventors as we are, we do adapt technology for other purposes. But in that case we know we are still using a pencil for something other than a pencil’s purpose. We identify the technology as still being a pencil even as it is being used for something secondary or derivative. In this case, the pencil’s form (as a stick) gives it a secondary function as a hair holder.
That’s why if a person pulls out a pencil we think they must be about to write something. We understand the technology’s primary purpose. We don’t first think they are about to put up their hair. When something different like that happens, it’s a surprise and we may even ask them if they want a something like a hair tie instead — because that technology’s purpose is to tie up hair…
So, even if we disagree about the morality of technology, we can agree that technology has purpose. Right?
I’m going to assume yes and continue. If you think no then you’ll likely not agree with this next part either.
The gun, like all other tech, has a purpose: a function and a form. It’s function is to shoot a bullet at extremely high speed to hit something with lethal force. Its forms, of course, are many. Then there are different kinds of guns, each with a variation of this primary function; either to shoot more, shoot faster, shoot bigger, etc.
Plainly, the purpose of the gun is to kill — and to do so efficiently. That’s both why we like it and why we fear it. It’s life-ending purpose is what gives it so many of the other derivative functions we often associate with it as well: it’s for safety (I can kill with it), for deterrence (people know I can kill them with it), for hunting (I can kill animals with it), or sport/practicing (I can get better at using it)…
Inventors as we are, the technology’s primary function can become replaced in our minds by our own secondary use of it. We can argue that our primary purpose for the technology is not the same as its intended purpose. Yet the technology’s primary purpose remains the same:
If a pencil, what are we about to write?
If a gun, what or who are we ready to kill?
So maybe the question is wrong. It’s not about the morality of the gun but about accepting the gun’s purpose and unpacking the morality of those who want this technology.
Maybe then we should stop debating about guns, and instead discuss the ways people are getting and keeping access to this purposed technology.