Final - Case 7.14

Question 1: Describe the Daniels’ Ethical standards:

Answer: Their ethical standard is purely based upon money. If an activity is not illegal, than while it may be considered immoral, it is not unethical. Since their activities do not directly contribute to any deaths, and the use of the weapons they sell could be purely for recreational uses, it can be reasoned that they are not morally to blame if a weapon is misused.

Question 2: Are the Daniels persuasive in disclaiming responsibility for what guns do?

Answer: Depends on your personal view on what a gun is. My view is that a gun is a tool. It can be used for a myriad of things. If you accept that a gun is a tool, and that the Daniels are merely the provisioners of that tool, then they are persuasive in their claim that they are not to blame. Arguably, the issue is not limited to the guns they sell that are now illegal to produce. The argument in a slightly different view would be whether the producer or distributer of a hammer are to blame if that hammer is misused in a violent crime. I think the moral standard of society currently is that no, the person who committed the act is to blame, not the person or company that created the implement used to carry out the heinous deed.

Question 3: Aren’t the Daniels just fulfilling a market need?

Answer: Yes and no. The fact that they are able to sell the item for 15x the price it was once sold at shows that yes, they are indeed filling a market demand. But since society (the government to be more specific) has outlawed the creation of these weapons, then they are also in what many would call a grey zone. Society as a whole (for this arguments sake) has deemed their product undesirable, so while they are fulfilling a demand, it’s not necessarily a demand that the society actually has a desire to be fulfilled.

Question 4: Could you work for the Daniels?

Answer: Yes. I don’t actually see much difference between this business and any other fringe hunting products or specialty products that are really just niche to collectors. For instance companies that sell swords. This product has absolutely no use other than for display or entertainment (legal). However, it could be miss-used, and cause great bodily harm or even death. I see little to no difference between the two beyond the fact that a firearm can do the same thing, just with greater ease.