I tend to question the ethics of military advancements. Not only the ethics honestly, sometimes I question the point of even having wars and hostility between nations. Obviously it’s not so much a choice as it is a by-product of many other factors leading to war, but I guess my main question is whether the conflicts between nation, and the arms races (even the unofficial ones) that are constantly ongoing between our nations is more destructive or more beneficial.
If you think about, so much money is funneled into the military, especially their research and development teams. Of course a lot of it is spent on developing new weapons or vehicles, but much of it is also spent developing health related technologies that eventually get applied to the general public.
There is of course the argument that the military funds could go directly to academic and industrial research and development, advancing our technology that way, but it seems that the there is more of a panic and rush to get out advancing technologies when it comes to the military.
The only downside is the devastation that comes out of wars. So the underlying question is: do the amazing medical and beneficial technologies being developed due to military pressure out weigh the atrocities arising from wars? If we take a humanist approach to this question, it becomes a little more simple: are more people being saved by military funding than are being killed? If yes, then it is ethically good. But I don’t believe this question stops at this humanist approach. I have no idea where it stops, but it just doesn’t feel right to stop there. I’m not sure why.