Morality and Knife Design

Objects are morally neutral, IMHO.

The concept of morality centers around choice: right and wrong -- it's an either or proposition. Objects don't make choices.

Morality is also a construction of a sentient mind. The ability to know right from wrong is at the core of law, therefore, we as a culture don't hold children and mentally-challenged people accountable for their actions as strictly as we would an adult. Objects aren't sentient.

Morality is based in a cultural tradition, different cultures often do not share the same views on morality. Objects, lacking ability to communicate, don't have culture.

Even the most horrifying objects in history: flame throwers, disco music, gas chambers, HR departments, atomic bombs, etc. require someone to operate them to fulfill their horrific destiny.

Do you have to be a bad person to design an object which is capable of bad things? That's a different question, but my belief is that it's not the case.
 
Spyderco Matriarch Emerson Wave or the Harpy or Citizen... these seem ideal for ripping out someone's guts. I guess that makes it a self-defense knife. I really don't know what else it might be good for, unless perhaps as a seaman's knife for cutting rope while at sea.
I don't buy designs like this, but neither am I a young girl walking late at night on a college campus. Just saw on Orlando tv, where THREE young girls leaving the college library at 2:00 a.m. have been attacked with attempted rapes during the last week or so. I guess if my grand-daughter was attending there, I'd buy her one of these.
Knives are, and always have been, useful for utility as well as defensive tactics.
I see no problem in providing the citizen with the tools to defend his/her life.
 
Any knife can be turned to use as a weapon, and making a tip next to useless for stabbing still leaves a capable slashing edge. Even my little Buck Hartsook could ruin someone's day if used up close and personally. Statistically, most knives used for criminal purposes come straight out of the kitchen.

The morality is, or is not, inherent to the human, and not the object he picks up. Designs can be ethical, (not a close copy of someone else's work), but they cannot be moral.

Pose your knife morality to the question of whether a "moral axe" could exist and you'll see how absurd it is. A large felling axe may be heavy and cumbersome as a weapon, but it could still be made to serve as a formidable one nonetheless.
 
It's already been stated far better than I could do it, but in short, I believe there is no morality or lack thereof in knife designs. It's simply a non-existent issue in this case.

One could argue from the point of ethics (copying a famous design for one's own profit for example) but not, I believe, the morality.

In fact if you replace "knife" with nearly anything else, you'll see that's the case. Are there morally superior television sets, t-shirts, cars or umbrellas?? Likely not. There aren't even immoral animals when you think about it. They simply do as instinct dictates most of the time.

Only humankind has both the capacity for the type of cruelty that makes morality an issue, as well as the powers of reasoning necessary to breathe life into the concept and debate it in the first place.
 
Roadracer_Al said:
Objects are morally neutral, IMHO.

The concept of morality centers around choice: right and wrong -- it's an either or proposition. Objects don't make choices.

Morality is also a construction of a sentient mind. The ability to know right from wrong is at the core of law, therefore, we as a culture don't hold children and mentally-challenged people accountable for their actions as strictly as we would an adult. Objects aren't sentient.

Morality is based in a cultural tradition, different cultures often do not share the same views on morality. Objects, lacking ability to communicate, don't have culture.

Even the most horrifying objects in history: flame throwers, disco music, gas chambers, HR departments, atomic bombs, etc. require someone to operate them to fulfill their horrific destiny.
Click to expand...

LOL, Disco music and HR departments. That is great. I love that. LOL. You just made my day. Thank you.

I would have to agree, objects are morally neutral. That is just common sense.

However, many people don't and will not ever agree with that belief system. Look at all the times that the media will potray an item as evil or immoral. Remember, in the eyes of many, you and I don't own guns and knives, we own weapons. Even though an object can not be sentient, there will always people who will promote the idea to further politics, religion, or a personal moral agenda.

As to knifesmithing and the OP, design and produce a simple product that is well thought out and user friendly. Use quality materials with good attention to detail in the workmanship. So many of the highly successfull bladesmiths recommended here on BF follow this very formula.

Looking forward to pictures of your work.
 
I believe that objects are neutral, as others have stated. If I saw something marketed that it could NOT be used as a weapon, I would refuse to buy it, based on my own principles. I find pacifism to be repugnant and utterly immoral. YMMV.

So the knife cuts both ways, pun intended.
 
I think there is definitely room for consideration of ethics and morals in the realm of knife design.
A designer/maker can choose to use recycled steel for the blade and salvaged wood for the handles for environmental reasons as an example. Furthermore, if you look at a master craftsman like Jerry Hossom, he went and created the Vengeance series of knives as a direct reaction to the events which occured on september 11, 2001 and further elaborates on his webiste. In this case the knives are built around emotions, ideas, morals and eventually become a political statement. While I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, the fact that he could put a part of himself into his knives like that is really impressive. While it might theoretically put off some people, it can allow people to have a really strong connection with a maker through their object and give the knives an identity and character all of their own, something which you don't see enough of in my opinion.

While it is true that no objects are inherently immoral, from a designer maker/point of view it becomes more complicates than that. While any knife can be used to kill someone and furthermore any object can pretty much be used to kill someone, the maker should recognise that their creations have a great potential to kill. Thats' not to say that if the knife is used to kill that it will be an immoral act and should feel guilty. The maker or designer has no control over that. Instead, the Designer/Maker should acknowledge and come to terms with the possibility that their knife could be used to kill another and be able to deal with that and justify it on their own moral compass. If not, then they probably shouldn't be making any blades in the first place.

This justification is quite easy to find through rationalising the issue as many have done so far. I find that the almost universal use of kitchen knives in knife attacks is a great example. This is because knife attacks are most often unplanned, heat of the moment affairs and kitchen knives are so readily available. If somebody is honestly planning to murder somebody then they aren't going to go ahead and buy a high end custom knife. They're more likely to go out and buy a gun, or some form of poison as these weapons are designed to make the act of killing as easy as possible for all parties involved. Furthermore, I think that say something like being a fashion designer has far more dire ethical issues, in that the manufacturing can involve the exploitation of the poor, desperate adults and children in developing countries, while the majority of "fast fashion" which designers take part in is designed to be heavily consumed and quickly discarded, leading to resource overuse, waste and landfill overflow. The ethical issues are there, they're just ignored.

I see that many of the people in this thread conflict with the notion that changing a tanto blade to a sheepsfoot blade makes it a less dangerous or "more ethical" object when in reality both can just as easily kill somebody. While the change to sheepsfoot does somewhat limit the use of the knife in a stabbing manner, it can still easily kill someone if the user puts their mind to it. In reality, these changes are not done for the sake of the user but are done for the emotional wellbeing of the designer. While they can't choose how the knife is used, they can control the design of the knife and while it may not really change anything it gives peace of mind that they have done what they can to minimise the potential of the knife to kill someone if that's something they have ethical issues with.
 
Sorry for the double post.
It gets more complicated when you get into the realm of tactical knife designs. These designs actively tap into the fantasy of being an operator and the mythology and stories surrounding warfare as a selling point. Additions can include G10 handle scales, skull crusher pommels, double edges etc. In the same way that the sheepsfoot blade does little to make a knife be any less deadly, the removal of these tactical additions (especially on folders) doesn't leave you with some kind of benign angel knife. It can still easily be used to kill someone. Instead the ethical issue surrounding the use of these war semiotics for aesthetic purpose is that it is a concious decision on the part of the designer and it at least partially gives the knife an appeal based on its capability or perceived capability for violence. This is once again one of those situations where you can rationalise it away and when it comes to actual knives being made for combat the makers are clearly understanding the weight of such a decision. However when it comes to the creation of tactical folders which are functionally better suited to fruit and open packets of chips then I feel like it may often be overlooked.

Finally, I feel that the justification Skallagrim gave for why tactical knives etc are given too much criticism might be the best out there. In essence, he draws a comparison between tactical knives and high end sports cars. Both are awesome things. The tactical knife makes itself cool through it's perceived capability for violence or its use by other, cooler people for violence, which for the user are acts which are against the law. The high end sports car makes itself cool through communicating the vast amounts of power underneath the bonnet and the mind boggling speeds which it is capable of. In australia for example, the speed limit here is 110kmph, yet these cars are capable of speeds 3 times that and everything about their design encourages driving at that sort of speed. This is also illegal and can lead to the deaths of passengers or other drivers on the road. They both use an illegal (at least here) fantasy to sell themselves, so why is one so heavily restricted while the purchases of the other are supported by everyone in this country, from your mum to the prime minister. Buy a fast car. They're awesome.

The answer to this is a simple one. Australian society revolves around the car and a fast car is a universally recognised status symbol, one which all envy. They're seen as essential objects. In today's Australia so many people have never even been camping, let alone used an axe or relied on a knife or blade as part of their work. Knives are seen as non essential objects. Furthermore, the ethical issues of the knife are blindingly obvious. Knives kill people! However when it comes to the ethical issues surrounding cars, they're completely ignored because people have blinders when it comes to things they already accept and refuse to question the status quo. Cars also kill people. In australia in 2010 there was 57 deaths resulting from knives. There were 1437 as a result of cars.

To clarify, I am in no way condemning those who make tactical knives or make knives for use in warfare. Everything is fair game if you feel good about it, I'm just advocating that these issues be given proper thought and due consideration either way.
 
Last edited:
Morality has nothing to do with inanimate objects and everything to do with the actions and intent of the user.

I personally like my knives to look viscous and tactical. I like the knuckle guards, tanto points, fullers/blood letting grooves, glass breakers/skull krunchers, matte black finishes and skulls galore. However the most violent or tactical use I get out of any oversized, black, evil looking knife is to assault a bag of potato chips. Design is not intent.
 
fugglesby said:
I think there is definitely room for consideration of ethics and morals in the realm of knife design.
A designer/maker can choose to use recycled steel for the blade and salvaged wood for the handles for environmental reasons as an example. Furthermore, if you look at a master craftsman like Jerry Hossom, he went and created the Vengeance series of knives as a direct reaction to the events which occured on september 11, 2001 and further elaborates on his webiste. In this case the knives are built around emotions, ideas, morals and eventually become a political statement. While I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, the fact that he could put a part of himself into his knives like that is really impressive. While it might theoretically put off some people, it can allow people to have a really strong connection with a maker through their object and give the knives an identity and character all of their own, something which you don't see enough of in my opinion.

While it is true that no objects are inherently immoral, from a designer maker/point of view it becomes more complicates than that. While any knife can be used to kill someone and furthermore any object can pretty much be used to kill someone, the maker should recognise that their creations have a great potential to kill. Thats' not to say that if the knife is used to kill that it will be an immoral act and should feel guilty. The maker or designer has no control over that. Instead, the Designer/Maker should acknowledge and come to terms with the possibility that their knife could be used to kill another and be able to deal with that and justify it on their own moral compass. If not, then they probably shouldn't be making any blades in the first place.

This justification is quite easy to find through rationalising the issue as many have done so far. I find that the almost universal use of kitchen knives in knife attacks is a great example. This is because knife attacks are most often unplanned, heat of the moment affairs and kitchen knives are so readily available. If somebody is honestly planning to murder somebody then they aren't going to go ahead and buy a high end custom knife. They're more likely to go out and buy a gun, or some form of poison as these weapons are designed to make the act of killing as easy as possible for all parties involved. Furthermore, I think that say something like being a fashion designer has far more dire ethical issues, in that the manufacturing can involve the exploitation of the poor, desperate adults and children in developing countries, while the majority of "fast fashion" which designers take part in is designed to be heavily consumed and quickly discarded, leading to resource overuse, waste and landfill overflow. The ethical issues are there, they're just ignored.

I see that many of the people in this thread conflict with the notion that changing a tanto blade to a sheepsfoot blade makes it a less dangerous or "more ethical" object when in reality both can just as easily kill somebody. While the change to sheepsfoot does somewhat limit the use of the knife in a stabbing manner, it can still easily kill someone if the user puts their mind to it. In reality, these changes are not done for the sake of the user but are done for the emotional wellbeing of the designer. While they can't choose how the knife is used, they can control the design of the knife and while it may not really change anything it gives peace of mind that they have done what they can to minimise the potential of the knife to kill someone if that's something they have ethical issues with.
Click to expand...

+1 for truth.
 
Here's a moral knife design:

JNr3P49.jpg
 
First, let me say I think this is an excellent thread. It requires a different sort of thought about these little (or big) pointy things we love so much. Great exploration of an interesting concept.

I think there is definitely a place for moral/ethical considerations in knife design. I think Fugglesby raises some interesting points when it comes to the design of knives with regard to their potential use of weapons, environmental considerations etc. While I agree that any knife could be used for criminal acts of violence (and great point re accessibility of kitchen knives!!) I do think there is a bit more to it. For example, when a knife is openly marketed as being undetectable and good for doing someone harm, is it really for use by mysterious government "operators", or is it more likely to be purchased (whether by makers' intention or negligence) by people who want to bypass nightclub metal detectors (whether they're criminals or just tools)? Similarly, when a producer of cheap knives makes a model specifically aimed for (and marketed toward) the violence-oriented are they being ethically responsible?

I always thought of knife design as being about form and function, but lately I have been thinking of that third point - Morality. I used to be an active volunteer with our local State Emergency Service and undertook hundreds of call-outs (mostly storm damage with some others like land search etc). As you could imagine, knives were an invaluable tool. Which is why I was appalled at the number and variety of so-called "rescue" knives I would find which were made from third-rate materials and even worse production standards. Some of these knives had half decent designs but were badly let down by the manufacturer's decision-making, while others were just pure rubbish. All too often they failed while in use in an emergency situation. Thinking about it, these knives clearly failed the "morality test". They would fail to perform in the way they were advertised, with possible consequences for the safety of operators and casualties. Similarly, we all know there are countless knives marketed for law enforcement, military etc which are also third-rate. When people's lives could be put in danger by the greed-driven behaviour of a manufacturer, the morality test has been failed.

Conversely, Spyderco's whale rescue knife (can't remember the exact name), Esee's ridiculously awesome warranty, and the top quality (and honest matching prices) of makers like Busse and Winkler show good design ethics. Some are purely in knife design - making sure they will not fail when needed - while others like the aforementioned Esee warranty have tied design and policy so closely to reinforce ethical business choices. Other companies support the lowest rungs of their society and encourage small businesses by making knives which promote the use of local materials and local (generously paid) labour. Sure these manufacturers get good marketing mileage out of these choices, but they are businesses after all.

All in all I think this is one facet of knife making which deserves a bit more consideration. Might have to promote the motto "Make a tool; don't be a tool" :D
 
Another "issue" in regards to this topic, especially when considering changing designs to better reflect a "non-aggressive" stance (i.e. changing a tanto to a sheepsfoot) is that there is almost no way to make a knife a non-lethal instrument in the proper hands. Barring a training knife, I think we sometimes forget (because for most of us knife fights are far from commonplace,) that humans are light-skinned game. It takes almost no effort, even with a fairly dull blade, to cause lacerations and damage to a human being. More so, while cutting someone's throat isn't like in the movies (everyone has some fat and gristle and tissue to get through that would probably require a sawing motion rather than one swift slash) it is still going to be a fairly easy thing to do, all things being equal and assuming the knife is at their throat.

The human body is at once extremely resilient in its ability to bounce back and heal from the most severe of injuries, and at the same time a fickle, fragile thing. The smallest virus or infection can kill us, or the most bizarre, out of place things can do severe harm before we even realize it.

Any knife, regardless of point or keenness of edge, can and will do severe damage if the intent of the user is there, and there's really no getting around that whether we minimize the "scary" factor of knives or not.
 
I do think this is a very interesting thread indeed, it's something that I've thought about a lot and I'm keen to get other points of view on it. On whether a knife marketed to the violence oriented is unethical, it's a very grey area. I think while the manufacturing of knives that are marketed on a violent platform to mall ninjas and people who don't use their knives at all, I don't think there's anybody out there who's actually specifically targeting potential or current criminals. As far as the mall ninjas are concerned, I feel that any portion of that user base which actually have violent tendencies are very small and no bigger than those in the bushcraft scene etc.
On the topic of undetectable knives, they're illegal in many countries, especially our own if I'm correct? that's a situation where our own governmnets have already decided that such a thing is immoral and debating over it is sort of a moot point. That's not to say that the debate isn't healthy and stimulating, but there's not a lot that can be done about it.

Chris Larrikin said:
Thinking about it, these knives clearly failed the "morality test". They would fail to perform in the way they were advertised, with possible consequences for the safety of operators and casualties. Similarly, we all know there are countless knives marketed for law enforcement, military etc which are also third-rate. When people's lives could be put in danger by the greed-driven behaviour of a manufacturer, the morality test has been failed.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. Misleading the consumer or purposefully putting out a shoddy product is definitely a "dog act". One unethical but accepted practice in design that I absolutely cannot stand is Planned Obsolescence, which is the creation of products that are designed to fail or to be rendered useless so that the company can make that single sale again and again. It's anti user, ridiculously greedy and consumptiionist to an appalling degree. Examples outside of knife design include printers which are programmed to fail after a certain amount of pages or Apple, whose entire business is based around making cool expensive products that break easily and can't be repaired. If they somehow manage to last a year then they're rendered obsolete by changes in OS and software with new cooler models. It's bad for the users and worse for the people living in african countries which are paid by Apple to act as landfill sites for their Electronic waste, batteries and toxic heavy metals which destroy the agriculture there. In knives though this business tactic is yet to make it as far as I'm aware. As soon as we see knives which use steels which need to be sent back to the manufactuer for sharpening, or which are designed to fail or deteriorate in performance over time to incentivise another purchase then I'll be alarmed. I feel that the knife community is smart enough to recognise crap like that when it arises.
 
It's an interesting discussion. As others have said, you cannot limit the use of the knife for potential violence without destroying the functionality of the knife. I would suggest asking yourself what morals guide you and how that can affect the build of the knife. Are you a Christian? I've seen nice crosses on knife scales. Is there some aspect of morality you identify with in your regional history? There are nice region-specific and people-specific knives. Is there some myth or story that connects your preferred use of the knife with your morals? An engraving of a Tolkien quote for example, or a maker's mark with something like a mythological image may convey this. Are there certain materials that link to your morality? Only using local materials, for example.

In short, keep the knife simple and try to add minor ideas to the knife rather than attempting to strip away at it for the cause of morality. Some may say that reducing the knife's functionality would be a form of violence. What is the knife's purpose, and how can the geometry, materials, aesthetics, and use be a virtue? Aristotle said the virtue of a knife is 'to cut well'. But I think there is more to it than that, effects beyond cutting are a good moral question to contemplate.
 
fugglesby said:
I agree with you 100%. Misleading the consumer or purposefully putting out a shoddy product is definitely a "dog act". One unethical but accepted practice in design that I absolutely cannot stand is Planned Obsolescence, which is the creation of products that are designed to fail or to be rendered useless so that the company can make that single sale again and again. It's anti user, ridiculously greedy and consumptiionist to an appalling degree.
Click to expand...

This is so true. I would go as far as to say that some of the outsourced companies such as Gerber make knives that are one level away from planned obsolescence. I have seen Gerber assisted folders with no lock what so ever (unless its some super-secret internal design). Sadly, the stuff Gerber puts out looks like quality compared to the junk sold at the average flea market. Frost Cutlery, Tac Force, Smith&Wesson knives, I'm talking about you.

As far as the designs of knives being moral, I think that this discussion shines a light on a potentially devasting line of thought relating to our community. As with firearms, all we need is one group to condemn the other and insist that certain knives are "evil", "immoral", or not suited for use by regular people. Why do this to ourselves? There are enough people who fear all knives as weapons to go around speculating as to which knives were designed with an maleviolent purpose in mind. Don't open that door.
 
zhyla said:
"Morality" is a broad term. OP seems to assume that using a knife as a weapon is somehow immoral. Some people feel all violence is immoral, others feel that varying degrees of self defense are moral. I think it's mostly a fruitless thought exercise though, just as an example an ordinary hammer makes a decent weapon even though it was designed purely for driving nails into woos.
Click to expand...

Zhyla, you've cut right to the heart of the matter. I don't think of violence as immoral when we're talking about defense of self or others. It's the idea of it being used aggressively against someone else that I oppose. I agree that's it a fruitless thought exercise in the long run, but I wanted to hear others' ideas. It seemed like a good discussion topic. As far as morality and design purpose go, I'd be proud to know a fighter I designed saved a life. I'd be horrified of it was used to commit a crime. Ultimately though, I have no control over how someone else uses it. By focusing on utility designs, I can limit the chances for misuse, but I love the look and feel of a well designed tactical or fighting knife.

I am loving the replies so far. Keep 'em coming!
 
Seems like many of the knives that "look" dangerous are the most dull and toy-like, while many that look more modest can effortlessly rend flesh from bone, if you'll pardon the mall-ninja terminology.
 
Many good thoughts above.

Try this: implicit in the inalienable right to life is the right to self-defense. Exercising that right may require a weapon to be effective.

______________________________________________________________________

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top