Explosive Armaments Vote

I would vote against having such weapons. Better go back to spears and arrows.

I don't think Putin would care about the vote.

Hmmmmm.

Sorry to be difficult.

But who or what is offering this hypothetical opportunity?

If it is simply a human ballot with no accompanying guarantee to act upon the result, then I would typically abstain.

Because as FLRW implies, Mr Putin et al would simply ignore the result.

If it were a GOD making the offer with guarantees,  then I would vote in favour of removal.

I would not vote for such a law because it would then only be the law-abiding citizens who are in danger. This structure would create a penalty of fear imbued on the honest citizens while rewarding the criminals with a sense of security and power. Therefore, I believe this to be quite counterproductive towards cultivating a peaceful society.

It's also important to consider that freedom and security are disproportional products of a society's political structure and laws. If one law increases freedom it will immediately decrease security, while a law that increases security will directly decrease freedom. If it were possible that the government had enough contingencies in place that it was quite impossible for anyone to get a hold of weaponry, it would still reduce freedom. I believe it is up to the citizens of a majority vote that it would be most ethically appropriate to judge whether more freedom or security is necessary. However, keep in mind that in future generations they will lose respect for the security their ancestors developed and take it for granted by becoming only freedom seekers and naive to the dangers outside of their nation which will then come in with crashing destruction. Conversely, if people are too fearful of freedom, they will seek to be slaves of society with the highest level of security and no freedom, which is hardly a life worth living. I believe it is necessary to strike a balance between the two but what the balance is I cannot say as it is a subjective question.

I was seeking philosophical clarification.

Because even philosophically, a human centred hypothesis would have to include all the baggage that comes with humans.

Whereas a GOD centred hypothesis just relies upon hypothetical trust or mistrust in a hypothetical GOD.

One cannot trust other countries to disarm.

One cannot trust other countries to disarm.

Your trapped in a box.

Humanity as a democracy gets to vote.  Simple, irrespective of whether a majority 51% or two thirds or 3/4 is agreed upon via vote, from out front.

Not all countries are Democracies,

Not all countries follow the same laws,

They are called separate countries for a reason,

Mankind is not united.

The values not in the 51%,

Will not acquiesce to the values in the 51%,

They will fight,

And without overpowering force, the 51% cannot force their ideals.

. . .

Not to mention how many different 'values there are,

Further fracturing humanity, in any sense of 'direction.

This question posed  is in philosophy, not reality thread.

Your trapped in a box, that inhibits your ability to philosophize, what if humanity on this planet or intelligent creatures on  another planet, are allowed a democratic vote:

a} yes ban all explosive armaments --includeds fireworks--- on planet,

b}   no, do not ban explosive armaments on planet. Simple except for those who fear making the obvious choice.  Strange how the cannot make the obvious philosophical choice that is has least potential to all who live on the planet. Why is that?

Some deep rooted issue haunts their ability to vote a{ yes, ban all explosive etc

I don't agree that philosophy should not address reality.

The question itself deals with reality,

The concern that such arms are harmful,

The want to make reality safer, less dangerous.

But it's excessively impractical.

. . .

Have all the countries in WW1 agree to peace 'far earlier,

Doesn't sound so impractical to me,

Though of course they didn't do it, even when a number of people suggested it.

But disarmament? No.

Not the world as it is now,

And even if the world were under one government, unwise then, is my view.

Still factions, still tyrants,

Better uneasy peace, than such idealism that cuts one's own throat.

Philosophy is intended to understand reality. It involves questioning fundamental concepts, exploring the nature of existence, truth, knowledge, ethics, and more. Philosophers use critical thinking and reasoning to seek deeper insights into the nature of reality and human experience.

Humans don't need explosive armaments to kill each other. They always figure out how to harm the other, like in England where the favourite armament is the knife (thanks to fucking muslims). 😁

If England heavily regulates guns, wouldn't other weapon use increase, 'regardless of Muslims?

I remember some piece of news on the TV once,

Talking about some criminals using dogs as weapons and intimidation.

. . .

Still, I imagine ebuc realizes killing would still exist,

They're just of the view that less killing would exist, without Explosive Armaments.

Maybe ebuc thinks explosive armaments are the most dangerous, but that is not so true. Chemical weapons are far more lethal and violent.

Much of the world has already agreed on limiting chemical weapons, I 'think.

I'm not sure if chemical weapons are 'better than explosive weapons though.

Chemical weapons are pretty nasty though, and indiscriminate,

Armies would get blowback on the wind sometimes when using them.

Course bombing can be pretty indiscriminate too.

A humanity wide vote is a step towards unity.

You appear to be more in fear a tyrannt,  than nuclear apocalypse.

Would a tyrrant with no explosive armaments on earth ---fireworks and also includes all hand held guns etc---- be  more acceptable to you, than a tyrannt with explosive armaments on Earth?

Well of course I do. Without explosive aramaents, the chances of nuclear apocalypse vanish, and Dresden-Germany firestorms from 1940's bombing could not occur ---Dresden was worse than Hiroshima or Nakzaki--. etc etc so on and so one would not occur.

The mere fact, of a humanity that united enough to take have such vote would tell us something about humanity.

1} in such a vote,  they are is disregard of skin color, culture, religion etc i.e. the vote is about would humans rather live on Earth with explosive armaments or not.  If the vote is no, then a whole lot of people need a whole lot more education, or,

....1a} even with more educations, those people will have to be able to have the ability to think using logical common sense critical thinking to some degree.  Perhaps there could be onliine pychological evaluations done first on all humans. To better understand ourselves.

....1b} what such an evaluation would be composed of in questions, scenarios etc, I dunno. Bigoted, racist, and etc to find out what kinds of issues humanity would need to address with some peoples specifically, before humanity has the first  having the first vote, 2nd vote { confirmation of first } etc.

...1d} my guess, that there is some groups of people out there, who already thinking these kinds of thoughts/philosophy.  If not, then we as a humanity or worse off than I had already figured.

I'm not inclined towards big government in general,

If one has the strength to defend their own values and people,

They ought not give up that strength.

. .

Better disunity, than one's own ideals and people be assimilated.

A wise nation would accept an apocalypse as inevitable,

Wise to safeguard by weapons, stock food ,dig bunkers,

'Try to avoid nuclear war,

But humans are aggressive and mad,

As more nations acquire power, world will be in greater danger.

Though chemical weapons may have been voted against, and America destroyed 'visible stockpiles,

I don't believe we got rid of 'all stockpiles or research,

I don't believe it of other nations either.

If there were not weapon alternatives equal in strength to chemicals, (Explosives)

Nations would not have removed chemicals from their armaments, is my view.

Hi Lemming, can you address those comments by me, ---in post 19--- with a specific and relevant answer.

Thanks if you can do that

Humanity has the United Nations,

Though I still wouldn't call that a united world government,

Loose coalition.

The idea of removing all explosives is absurd,

The idea that tyrants would agree to such, is absurd.

Though of course 'some tyrants can be bribed or forced into being disarmed, there will exist those unwilling.

Take Germany in WW2 for example,

And the 'pacifists of France and England, who encouraged disarmament and the weakening of their militaries.

They wanted to have peace and were willing to sacrifice the Czechs, thinking Hitler will be reasonable.

I would suggest that criminality anywhere will inevitably favour weapons.

Though the majority of ordinary* British citizens  do not carry knifes, whereas in the U.S. a high proportion of the populous own guns.

And I would also suggest that it is something of an Inherent American fallacy, that Muslim criminals are somehow worse or more abundant than any other criminal.

*Ordinary...Ordinary is as ordinary is perceived I suppose.

I suppose for the criminal, criminality is ordinary.

And I also suppose that in the U.S. owning firearms is ordinary.

It appears to me you avoided some of my comments directed at you post #19. I'm short on time now.

Do you believe that in an event where the worldwide populace voted in favor of the abolition of explosive armaments that humanity would suddenly drop their weapons? Who would drop first, and who would feel safe enough to believe that the enemies are not hiding any? I believe that for anyone to believe that an enemy is not concealing a weapon waiting for you to drop yours is naive. Therefore, the only reasonable thing to do is hold the stick but never use it, similar to the belt for children. You don't intend on using it, but you remind others of the consequences of their actions, maintaining order.

In a hypothetical scenario where no explosive weapons would be concealed, I agree that having them all destroyed would be safer for the world, but we cannot put the genie back in the bottle as some would say.

I have no beliefs of humanity's vote.  I know what the most  logical, common sense critical thinking conclusion is.

Would you care to share why you don't believe humanity Would vote in the abolition of explosive armaments, along with what you believe the most logical decision would be in a real-world scenario and the reasoning that led you to conclude such?