[pxeger1]

FTR I don't necessarily believe that designing better arms is inherently unethical. But if one did, this is why your counterargument wouldn't make sense:

Knife sales are close to zero-sum, but Palantir is innovating with its lethal technology for the sole purpose of being a more effective weapon. If you were stabbed to death by a knife that is somehow designed specifically to be deadlier or harder to defend against, would you call its designer evil?

[koolba]

> If you were stabbed to death by a knife that is somehow designed specifically to be deadlier or harder to defend against, would you call its designer evil?

No, I’d call them innovative if that’s what the market was looking for.

Would you have said the same thing about a medieval blacksmith cresting a new type of sword?

[humpty-d]

Peter Scully was morally just because there was a market for his content

[const_cast]

> No, I’d call them innovative if that’s what the market was looking for.

Well you wouldn't call them anything because you'd be dead. But it's nice that even in death, you're still considering shareholder value above all else.

> Would you have said the same thing about a medieval blacksmith cresting a new type of sword?

I mean yeah, probably, if it's uniquely bad and uniquely dangerous.

Yes building evil things is evil. To me, that isn't controversial. If I build the torment nexus I'm probably an evil person.

Obviously, there's levels here, and I think appealing to... sigh... knives is pretty disingenuous.

Everything is a matter of scale. What's the difference between a nuclear bomb and a knife? I mean, besides plutonium. Scale. One can harvest the lives of millions in the blink of an eye, and one is a knife.

That's why I don't cut my bread with a nuclear warhead.