The ethics of selling guns - Essay Example

rt into a particular country Even though it is not constitutional, mostly assault weapons, are banned for manufacture and import into the country, and all guns are barred for convicted criminals. Nonetheless, it is lawful to sell the parts required to assemble these weapons. Besides, there is no system put in place to track or register gun parts (except the receiver), and so several gun parts can be sold to criminals who can then assemble the guns for their criminal use. The question then arises, is it the ethical responsibility of gun manufacturers, dealers, and companies to close up gaps and offer tight regulations who they sell gun parts to and what type of parts they sell without infringing constitutional right and a basic freedom given to all citizens?

Though it may not be constitutional to bar the production and importation of assault weapons, it is not ethical for gun manufacturers and companies to evade the law and undermine the government by making assault weapons easily accessible, and making any gun available to a convicted criminal. The common argument that “Guns don’t kill, people do” does not apply to the utilitarian test. The correct principle is how much (dis)utility arises from selling the guns, irrespective of who shoots them.

A gun manufacturer has to consider the negative utility created by those who use its guns. Nonetheless, the equally general argument that “If I don’t do it, someone else will” applies for the utilitarian test. If other producers would pick up the limp as a result of one’s decision not to sell assault weapons, leading to the similar total sales, then there is no obvious utilitarian argument for selling or against selling the firearms. On the contrary, the positive utility can be created (recreation, hunting, and self-defense) by selling guns that are not dangerous has less negative expected utility.

As far as “categorical imperative” is concerned, Freeman argues that any ethical decision must be assessed