An exploration into the morality of the invention

[AlphaFoxtrotNW]

So this is a problem I have been plagued with for months about the morality of an invention. The premise is this, An unnamed scientist invents a aircraft that can land in any weather or any terrain and is designed to save peoples lives. The government looks at the aircraft and asks if they can use it for military operations against hostile combatants. The scientist, thinking the aircraft can save lives if used in justified combat, agrees to this proposal. Within the first several years, a mission fouls up, killing non combative civilians. The scientist is horrified at what evil it has caused and ultimately asks the question “If I invent something that in some way harms innocent people, am I at fault?” I would appreciate any and all thoughts about this because this seemed like the best forum to put it in and I would like to clear some of this fog in my head.

 

[GEddie]

We are not responsible for the actions of others. QED

ICXC NIKA

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

We are not responsible for the actions of others. QED

ICXC NIKA

This might be a little strong. You are morally responsible for what is reasonably foreseeable, I think. If I hand a homicidal maniac a loaded gun, and he goes off to kill a dozen random people, I’m at fault, because I should have been able to anticipate that giving a homicidal maniac a shotgun would result in innocent death.

In the OP’s example, the scientist is just too far removed from the deaths to be morally responsible. There are too many intervening steps along the way.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think this echoes somewhat of the classic “Trolley Problem”.

But no, I don’t see how the inventor can be culpable for the uses of the peaceful invention once they’ve lost exclusive control of it. The steak-knife company is not at fault when my wife uses one to angrily stab me. They made it to cut steaks, not husbands.

Now if you want to shift the subject to firearms manufacturers, I think the case is a bit different; particularly in the case of handguns - an invention made specifically for “hunting” people, as its history goes.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So this is a problem I have been plagued with for months about the morality of an invention. The premise is this, An unnamed scientist invents a aircraft that can land in any weather or any terrain and is designed to save peoples lives. The government looks at the aircraft and asks if they can use it for military operations against hostile combatants. The scientist, thinking the aircraft can save lives if used in justified combat, agrees to this proposal. Within the first several years, a mission fouls up, killing non combative civilians. The scientist is horrified at what evil it has caused and ultimately asks the question “If I invent something that in some way harms innocent people, am I at fault?” I would appreciate any and all thoughts about this because this seemed like the best forum to put it in and I would like to clear some of this fog in my head.

No need to get hypothetical, check out Thomas Midgley Jr:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

Doctor Thomas Midgley Jr. (May 18, 1889 – November 2, 1944) was an American mechanical engineer and chemist. He was a key figure in a team of chemists, led by Charles F. Kettering, that developed the tetraethyllead (TEL) additive to gasoline as well as some of the first chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)… In 1940, at the age of 51, Midgley contracted poliomyelitis, which left him severely disabled. This led him to devise an elaborate system of strings and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. This system was the eventual cause of his own death when he was entangled in the ropes of this device and died of strangulation at the age of 55.

The man invented both leaded gasoline and CFCs. Both excellent solutions to technical problems, both hugely harmful to people and the environment when used in large quantities.