[darkpuma]

If you use or threaten to use such a torture device on somebody, that would be immoral. Your use of it immoral, not the device itself. If you create this torture device and put it on display as a novelty, then it's not being used for anything immoral. So yes, even your hypothetical torture device is amoral.

In fact, it's not so hypothetical. The vast majority of iron maidens ever created have only ever been used as novelties, not for torture.

[pbhjpbhj]

AIUI the iron maiden was created solely as a novelty.

Creating the improved capability for torture is itself immoral IMO.

Worth noting here that a torture device works not only by physical application, but working on the mind as a possibility - just the presence of such a device, or awareness of such a device can create palpable fear. (Like brandishing a weapon, which is often illegal, is still effective, the weapon didn't have to be fired to be used.)

[darkpuma]

> Creating the improved capability for torture is itself immoral IMO.

I can agree with that. Creating is an act and acts can have morality, hence brandishing at somebody is immoral as well. The inanimate object you create is still amoral though. I might put you on trial for war crimes for advancing the state of the art of torture, then go on to use your torture device in a moral way, by putting it on display to serve as a warning to future generations.

To bring this discussion back to the topic of software, distribution of software is an act and can be judged as immoral or moral. Depending on the nature of your software, it may be immoral to distribute it indiscriminately to the general public. Some people will probably find that contentious, but I think the possibility is definitely there. On the other hand, depending again on the nature of your creation, it might be immoral to not give it to the general public. Imagine if Alexander Fleming was a misanthrope and took the secret of penicillin to the grave.

[mikeash]

Putting it on display isn’t using it.