Morality and Knife Design

[chiral.grolim]

Just to contribute to a celebrity thread:

In my opinion, "designing for the market" is morally offensive. Knives should be designed for their purpose and intended use ... decorative knives that are never intended to be used...

It would seem that much of BudK and other catalogs present "knives that are never intended to be used", designed to look 'cool' for a costume or fantasy of the buyer. "Designing for the market" should not be morally offensive unless the intended market is one that harbors morally offensive ideas, e.g. violently attacking people for some reason or trying to disarm them of their rights and possessions. E.g. "This knife is designed to help you rape people." Clearly that is morally offensive.
But if the market is a kid playing at Rambo or Tolkien, is it morally offensive to provide him with the object of his desire? Why is such enable-ment offensive? Whom does his fantasy harm?
On a more utilitarian note, there is a preponderance of "sharpened pry-bars" on the market. Are those designs morally offensive? The designers should have chastised those desiring such a design, asserting, "No knife should be used for prying, that is what pry-bars are for! Get yourself an appropriately sized prybar and an opinel and never again bother us knife-makers with such ridiculous notions."

In much or Europe, locking folders are forbidden, and even in the USA are many bans on spring-loaded knives and double-edged knives and knives of certain blade-lengths. Evidently these designs are all morally offensive? Or cause too many fatalities (vs. kitchen knives, the primary killer and as inexpensive as they are ubiquitous)?

I agree that "knives should be designed for their intended purpose and use". But unless the design is specifically (stated) or is effectively (via an overwhelming majority of empirical evidence or the presence of a clear and significant threat) intended for a morally offensive use (i.e. agents have given this object some moral involvement)...

Jerry designs knives to kill people, homocide. Murder is homicide and morally offensive. But Jerry does NOT specifically design murder weapons because "homicide" includes more than just "murder" as he described. Would the world be better off without Jerry Hossom's killing tools? Only if ALL the other killing tools were also absent, an absurdity. Disarmament only effects peace on the terms of him wielding the mightier weapon. My $0.02

 

[Catherine_Montana]

I have to say that as a knifemaker this has been a fascinating read. As one who purposefully makes knives that can and have been used for violent purposes, I'll share my thoughts on the morality of what I do. I do indeed make moral judgements on the use of the knives I make. While I certainly can't prohibit their use for "immoral" purposes, my intent (the only aspect of knife design I can control) is that I see two uses of knives that are made specifically with the capacity to kill someone. One is defensive, as a weapon of last resort in defending one's person from someone trying to harm them. The other is offensive, in the termination of a person who is a threat to others, as in war. I view those as morally acceptable. My moral obligation, as I see it, is to make that weapon as reliable and utilitarian as I can, ensuring it won't fail in either of those circumstances. I could use the lame argument that if I don't make the knife someone else will and better mine than budk, but that's a cop out. The fact is I enjoy the challenge of making knives that are technically effective in the lethal roles for which they are intended. In my view, the consequences of failure may well be the death of an innocent person at the hands of a felon or someone who wishes harm to my country and family, and that is my moral judgement, the side I've chosen to take. There are some unique challenges to making a knife that is an effective killing tool; they are subtly complex in shape, require a knowledgeable selection of materials, and demand meticulous attention to how they are constructed. They have absolutely nothing to do with the word "cool", a term I despise when describing knives. In fact, I could argue that those who undertake to make "cool" knives are morally irresponsible because they are too often bought by those who think they are somehow made serviceable because they do look "cool", and they especially appeal to those whose moral character might be questionable, so they are more likely to be used for immoral purposes. As weapons of proven lethality, kitchen knives far outnumber all others in recent decades, proving that "cool" isn't a necessary element of lethal capacity. Any blade with a sharp edge is lethally competent. It doesn't need a point, and if killing is the purpose, as in the defensive and offensive examples I cited above, the person needing the knife deserves the most effective tool they can have in their hand, be it knife, gun, or brick. And that is moral, ...in my judgement.

^^^

This and thank you.

Cate

 

[Catherine_Montana]

Knives for military and civilian uses don't differ much. What does differ is how they are carried of course. Most civilian knives are for concealed carry, while that isn't much concern in the military except for some special operations people who like to keep something hidden for just in case moments. My most widely carried model in the military is one I designed for concealed carry by an undercover narcotics agent in Rhode Island. I call it the Narc, but it rides on a lot of vests in the military as a last line of defense weapon. Increasingly, civilians are arming themselves, both with guns and knives, with the latter most often by people who train in martial arts for their use. In truth, a knife is a dangerous weapon to carry unless you do have some training in using them because a poorly wielded knife can get you killed as easily as no weapon at all, maybe even more likely to get you killed if your antagonist is also armed and you don't know how to deal with that. But, I believe something is better than nothing in most cases, and might actually deter an attack by its very presence. I'm often asked to talk with martial arts training groups about knives and their qualities, because while they train in the use of knives, their knowledge of the weapon itself is often a bit naive. In fact, that is somewhat reflected here in the question about a sheepsfoot blade being less lethal than any other. Most knife attacks, both offensive and defensive are cuts, often aimed at points where an artery or muscle group is vulnerable. The point is irrelevant, and arguably the thicker point on many tanto's might be less effective in a cut.

In my opinion, "designing for the market" is morally offensive. Knives should be designed for their purpose and intended use. While some artistic compromises might well be expected, the knife should retain its purpose in all cases except possibly the high art and decorative knives that are never intended to be used. A buyer should use the same mindset when buying a defensive weapon as they use when buying a kitchen knife. Does it work for what I want to do? That and the quality of its construction are all that matters, and if you don't know how to slice tomatoes and don't know what works best, you probably ought to seek advice from someone who does and learn why one knife works better than others.

Thank you.

Cate

 

[Catherine_Montana]

I view a knife as a tool or as an object.

It can be used in the kitchen, around the house, hunting, construction work, peace officer work, the military, self defense for any person, etc.

Since it can be used for self defense... you better hope that the design and quality of the knife will hold up if a person needed it for such a purpose. The person using it should know how to use it in a responsible and safe manner too.

I do not view the knife (Or a gun, vehicle, hammer, etc.) itself as being moral or immoral. It is a tool and an inanimate object.

I view the knife maker as being a moral businessman in making a tool that will serve it's intended purpose (Design) and hold up (Quality) when the user needs it for any purpose.

The OP should design a quality knife for it's intended purpose and forget the 'cool' factor.

He should make what he likes to make.

The buyer and user of his product can use it it for it's intended purpose.

The buyer and user of any tool can use it in a safe and responsible manner. He can be a moral or immoral individual.

Best wishes to the OP.

Cate

 

[syco1138]

I have to say that as a knifemaker this has been a fascinating read. As one who purposefully makes knives that can and have been used for violent purposes, I'll share my thoughts on the morality of what I do. I do indeed make moral judgements on the use of the knives I make. While I certainly can't prohibit their use for "immoral" purposes, my intent (the only aspect of knife design I can control) is that I see two uses of knives that are made specifically with the capacity to kill someone. One is defensive, as a weapon of last resort in defending one's person from someone trying to harm them. The other is offensive, in the termination of a person who is a threat to others, as in war. I view those as morally acceptable. My moral obligation, as I see it, is to make that weapon as reliable and utilitarian as I can, ensuring it won't fail in either of those circumstances. I could use the lame argument that if I don't make the knife someone else will and better mine than budk, but that's a cop out. The fact is I enjoy the challenge of making knives that are technically effective in the lethal roles for which they are intended. In my view, the consequences of failure may well be the death of an innocent person at the hands of a felon or someone who wishes harm to my country and family, and that is my moral judgement, the side I've chosen to take. There are some unique challenges to making a knife that is an effective killing tool; they are subtly complex in shape, require a knowledgeable selection of materials, and demand meticulous attention to how they are constructed. They have absolutely nothing to do with the word "cool", a term I despise when describing knives. In fact, I could argue that those who undertake to make "cool" knives are morally irresponsible because they are too often bought by those who think they are somehow made serviceable because they do look "cool", and they especially appeal to those whose moral character might be questionable, so they are more likely to be used for immoral purposes. As weapons of proven lethality, kitchen knives far outnumber all others in recent decades, proving that "cool" isn't a necessary element of lethal capacity. Any blade with a sharp edge is lethally competent. It doesn't need a point, and if killing is the purpose, as in the defensive and offensive examples I cited above, the person needing the knife deserves the most effective tool they can have in their hand, be it knife, gun, or brick. And that is moral, ...in my judgement.

+1 for truth.

Also your sig is awesome.

 

[syco1138]

Knives for military and civilian uses don't differ much. What does differ is how they are carried of course. Most civilian knives are for concealed carry, while that isn't much concern in the military except for some special operations people who like to keep something hidden for just in case moments. My most widely carried model in the military is one I designed for concealed carry by an undercover narcotics agent in Rhode Island. I call it the Narc, but it rides on a lot of vests in the military as a last line of defense weapon. Increasingly, civilians are arming themselves, both with guns and knives, with the latter most often by people who train in martial arts for their use. In truth, a knife is a dangerous weapon to carry unless you do have some training in using them because a poorly wielded knife can get you killed as easily as no weapon at all, maybe even more likely to get you killed if your antagonist is also armed and you don't know how to deal with that. But, I believe something is better than nothing in most cases, and might actually deter an attack by its very presence. I'm often asked to talk with martial arts training groups about knives and their qualities, because while they train in the use of knives, their knowledge of the weapon itself is often a bit naive. In fact, that is somewhat reflected here in the question about a sheepsfoot blade being less lethal than any other. Most knife attacks, both offensive and defensive are cuts, often aimed at points where an artery or muscle group is vulnerable. The point is irrelevant, and arguably the thicker point on many tanto's might be less effective in a cut.

In my opinion, "designing for the market" is morally offensive. Knives should be designed for their purpose and intended use. While some artistic compromises might well be expected, the knife should retain its purpose in all cases except possibly the high art and decorative knives that are never intended to be used. A buyer should use the same mindset when buying a defensive weapon as they use when buying a kitchen knife. Does it work for what I want to do? That and the quality of its construction are all that matters, and if you don't know how to slice tomatoes and don't know what works best, you probably ought to seek advice from someone who does and learn why one knife works better than others.

I must say I disagree with some of the things you said in the second paragraph. A knife can be designed for it's intended use while being "cool"/aesthetically pleasing. I find a well designed, manufactured, "evil looking" fighting knife to be a piece of useable art, however it's beauty reduces to almost nothing if it is impossible to use, or manufactured poorly. In my opinion practicality and art are not mutually exclusive, and when existing in harmony together, are second to nothing.

 

[fugglesby]

If the market is a kid playing at Rambo or Tolkien, is it morally offensive to provide him with the object of his desire? Why is such enable-ment offensive? Whom does his fantasy harm?

In this case, I don't think design for market is an issue as long as the knife isn't marketed as an actual dependable user and the customer isn't misled. However the resounding issue with "Design for Market" is that it primarily involves the designing of knives primarily for the sake of making money, hitting target markets, leveraging current trends etc. Jerry is lucky enough that his business model and craftsmanship allows him to make knives specifically for an individuals needs. These knives are solutions to problems that the user has. These BudK knives are solutions to problems that the manufacturer has, primarily that they don't have enough money for their liking.
For me, the issue I have with "Design for Market" in this respect is the same issue that Victor Papanek has with it.

“Advertising design, in persuading people to buy things they don`t need, with money they don`t have, in order to impress others who don`t care, is probably the phoniest field in existence today.”
― Victor Papanek, Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change

It's the addressing of a false need, which is a manipulation of the consumer and furthermore results in the use of resources in the creation of fetishized objects which have no real reason for existing.

If his ideas interest you, I strongly suggest reading his wikipedia page at least. A man who was very critical of industrial design, claiming it to be one of the most potentially damaging fields on earth but also managed to work within it, influencing change in the minds of others and real positive change through his design work.

 

[Jerry Hossom]

Maybe I should clarify my designing for the market comment. By this I meant that designing "knives" with the sole attribute being to look cool or to appeal to a buyer's fantasies while neglecting the useful purpose of the knife is problematic for me. There are never disclaimers on such knives, suggesting you would be unwise to actually use one, and most especially not depend on it in life threatening emergencies, so it is marketed with a buyer beware mentality knowing full well the buyer will never beware. It's like selling a gun that may blow up in your hand, or maybe a bullet proof vest that only stops some bullets and not others. There are many unsafe knives made and sold today, and I'm reminded of a commercial on one of the shopping channels where a katana broke while cutting something trivial and injured the man demonstrating the sword. Designing for the market includes all aspects of a knife since design, necessarily including materials and methods of construction to achieve specific price points. But at any price point, a knife can be useful or not, depending on the integrity of the maker.

 

[DrFish]

Anybody remember Tom Maringer?

He made some absolutely wicked fixed blades and concealment systems. We're talking 12inch concealable fixed blade in a shoulder rig designed to break front and draw strike through your jacket wicked.

Back in 1994 or so he found out that somebody had been killed by one of his knives. He had such a crisis of conscience that quit the knife business completely and pursed other things.

He's only recently started making knives again. Granted, he's more invested into his blades than most people. I believe his recent pieces all get a name that is only revealed to the buyer and which is only visible on disassembly. He also makes coins.

 

[RedLynx]

Anybody remember Tom Maringer?

He made some absolutely wicked fixed blades and concealment systems. We're talking 12inch concealable fixed blade in a shoulder rig designed to break front and draw strike through your jacket wicked.

Back in 1994 or so he found out that somebody had been killed by one of his knives. He had such a crisis of conscience that quit the knife business completely and pursed other things.

He's only recently started making knives again. Granted, he's more invested into his blades than most people. I believe his recent pieces all get a name that is only revealed to the buyer and which is only visible on disassembly. He also makes coins.

I feel bad for the gentleman you mentioned, and of course even asking this, only speculation from other members here can be provided. Having said that I must ask, doesn't it seem logical that a concealment system designed to house a "12 or larger knife in a shoulder rig that can strike through the jacket, would be marketed--and very possibly used--as at least a defensive weapon?

I don't know the circumstances in question and again, no personal problem with his crisis of conscience and I feel bad for him, really. But in the example posted, that seems very clear to me that what was being made at least leaned toward defensive implement. And let me say I'm firmly in the camp of knives as tools that can be used as other things by the will of the hand which guides them.

So I guess I don't understand his seeming surprise that this happened. Actually I'm surprised it didn't happen more.

I know a case can be made that such a rig/system is not inherently a weaponized thing. And I would agree with that. But I also think we can safely assume such a rig wasn't made with hunters, fisherman or contractors in mind, either.

My post isn't meant to incite anything, just to show that I don't really get it. Which happens often.

 

[B34NS]

In my opinion, "designing for the market" is morally offensive.

As one of my favorite designers Massimo Vignelli would call this "vulgarity". However we do live in a time of gross consumption, the signal tends to get lost in the noise of the trend.

 

[DrFish]

I feel bad for the gentleman you mentioned, and of course even asking this, only speculation from other members here can be provided. Having said that I must ask, doesn't it seem logical that a concealment system designed to house a "12 or larger knife in a shoulder rig that can strike through the jacket, would be marketed--and very possibly used--as at least a defensive weapon?

I don't know the circumstances in question and again, no personal problem with his crisis of conscience and I feel bad for him, really. But in the example posted, that seems very clear to me that what was being made at least leaned toward defensive implement. And let me say I'm firmly in the camp of knives as tools that can be used as other things by the will of the hand which guides them.

So I guess I don't understand his seeming surprise that this happened. Actually I'm surprised it didn't happen more.

I know a case can be made that such a rig/system is not inherently a weaponized thing. And I would agree with that. But I also think we can safely assume such a rig wasn't made with hunters, fisherman or contractors in mind, either.

My post isn't meant to incite anything, just to show that I don't really get it. Which happens often.

There's a huge gulf between designing a weapon, even for defensive use, and finding out that the work of your own hands has taken a life.

Here's a post from him talking about it (link) http://edcforums.com/threads/does-anyone-remember-tom-maringer.40450/#post-506338

This is the vorpal design.

 

[Quiet]

There's a huge gulf between designing a weapon, even for defensive use, and finding out that the work of your own hands has taken a life.

Here's a post from him talking about it (link) http://edcforums.com/threads/does-anyone-remember-tom-maringer.40450/#post-506338

This is the vorpal design.

Eh, I tend to disagree. Designing a weapon for self defense implies that you gave some thought to how to make it an effective weapon, no? So, you're going to be considering things like, which is the best edge geometry for slicing flesh. How might I design the point of the knife so as to make it a more effective stabbing implement?

So, let's not pretend that there's some "huge gulf" between all of the things you had to consider when designing a weapon, and then discovering that your weapon was used. Frankly, if you don't want your creations killing people, you may not want to create things designed to kill people.

But that's just me.

 

[RedLynx]

Eh, I tend to disagree. Designing a weapon for self defense implies that you gave some thought to how to make it an effective weapon, no? So, you're going to be considering things like, which is the best edge geometry for slicing flesh. How might I design the point of the knife so as to make it a more effective stabbing implement?

So, let's not pretend that there's some "huge gulf" between all of the things you had to consider when designing a weapon, and then discovering that your weapon was used. Frankly, if you don't want your creations killing people, you may not want to create things designed to kill people.

But that's just me.

That's what I think... again, not to incite anything, just throwing in my view.

But designing a weapon to me means there is pretty much no gulf between that and finding it's been used to take a life. That's literally the only purpose of a weapon. Defensively or otherwise.

Now if he had designed tools and found they'd been used as weapons? Then I would get it.

This is just weird, no offense to the designer of this thing.

But designing a weapon that you do not expect or intend to be used as such? Despite it being designed for concealment and stabbing through a jacket and stuff? That's just... well I don't even know what that is honestly.

I want to clarify I don't think most knives are weapons full stop, that's not what I'm saying. And maybe this knife would also make a good tool, I really don't know. But as you say, the maker designed this knife as a weapon. And I feel when one does that, they know what the end result will, or at least should be. In the most technical binary sense, his knife, weapon, whatever, fulfilled the function for which he made it.

 

[DrFish]

That's what I think... again, not to incite anything, just throwing in my view.

But designing a weapon to me means there is pretty much no gulf between that and finding it's been used to take a life. That's literally the only purpose of a weapon. Defensively or otherwise.

Now if he had designed tools and found they'd been used as weapons? Then I would get it.

This is just weird, no offense to the designer of this thing.

But designing a weapon that you do not expect or intend to be used as such? Despite it being designed for concealment and stabbing through a jacket and stuff? That's just... well I don't even know what that is honestly.

So you guys can't see the gap between designing a defensive weapon, and finding out that something your own hands made has been either used or even worse misused to kill? It's the difference between theory and practice, and it's a huge one.

There are plenty of people who go into my field thinking they know what they are getting into and eventually find out that they really don't have the stomach for it. Sight of blood and all. You never really know how a situation will affect you until you've actually been in it.

Reality hit him pretty hard and he backed away for a while for moral reasons. I have to respect him for following his conscience.

 

[RedLynx]

So you guys can't see the gap between designing a defensive weapon, and finding out that something your own hands made has been either used or even worse misused to kill? It's the difference between theory and practice, and it's a huge one.

I agree the difference between theory and practice is huge. However, I don't believe it should apply here. Let's think about it for a moment. He thought about and designed a weapon. Which, again, is perfectly fine and valid. Nothing wrong with weapons. Heck, we need them. More power to him. But that's what this was, and that's what he designed. It had one function and like it or not, that function was performed. There isn't some gap to be bridged between theory and practice because although we can see by his reaction the gravity of his design was not fully comprehended till it was used in the field, the theory was "how to design an effective system to conceal a very large defensive blade" and the practice was "large defensive blade in special concealment rig used to kill." It may sound callous I guess, but I just don't see a gap here.

There are plenty of people who go into my field thinking they know what they are getting into and eventually find out that they really don't have the stomach for it. Sight of blood and all. You never really know how a situation will affect you until you've actually been in it.

I believe that statement is partially true. Some people know themselves well enough that they really DO know how a certain situations will affect them regardless of having been in them. It is possible, if you know yourself well enough, trust me on that. The designer in question clearly found out he did not know himself as well as he thought when he started the project, and for that I do feel sorry for him, and wish he could have saved himself a hard-hitting situation.

Reality hit him pretty hard and he backed away for a while for moral reasons. I have to respect him for following his conscience.

I respect him as well, you do what you gotta do. I just think he had a horrible lack of foresight and self-awareness here and that, ultimately, is was caused him the pain.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

An item is only a weapon when it has been used to harm people.

 

[Quiet]

So you guys can't see the gap between designing a defensive weapon, and finding out that something your own hands made has been either used or even worse misused to kill? It's the difference between theory and practice, and it's a huge one.

There are plenty of people who go into my field thinking they know what they are getting into and eventually find out that they really don't have the stomach for it. Sight of blood and all. You never really know how a situation will affect you until you've actually been in it.

Reality hit him pretty hard and he backed away for a while for moral reasons. I have to respect him for following his conscience.

Honestly? No. And I think it's disingenuous to make that argument, honestly. "I design things to kill people, but I'd be horrified and deeply impacted if they were used to kill people!" Then why design things that kill people? I mean, we're not talking about someone who designs throw pillows, being shocked and horrified that one of his throw pillows was used to asphyxiate someone. Right? We're talking about someone who designed knives for a purpose, who was then horrified when his knives were used for that purpose. Right?

I just can't see how someone could separate the two. Now, if you're a car designer, and you designed a car that was used to run someone over, killing them, then I WOULD understand that car designer's shock and horror at something he created being used to end a life.

But a knife guy, who designs killer self-defense weapons? Being shocked that his killer self-defense weapon was used in self-defense to kill someone? What? The word I would use in this situation would be naive. Listen, I don't know the designer, and hey, sorry that his conscience took a hit. But frankly, here's something else that he should have in the back of his mind: wonder how many OTHER people his products killed?

 

[Quiet]

An item is only a weapon when it has been used to harm people.

I would disagree. Swords, maces, handguns, stabby "tactical" knives designed to kill people? Those are weapons regardless of whether they were used to kill someone, or else sat in a safe for fifty years.

Ballpeen hammers, pencils, automobiles, screwdrivers, and other improvised things used to kill people? Those are not weapons. They were tools that were put to another purpose.

 

[fugglesby]

This Vorpal knives incident is such an interesting example! I feel that this discussion is getting a little heated right now. Let's chill a little bit and take a break to look at this picture of a cute dog holding a knife.

In retrospect, it's a little unsettling. Real shifty eyes.

There are two different definitions of weapon being used here, the literal definition and the legal definition.

Literal definition from oxford dictionary: "A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage".

In this case, the Vorpal blades are literal weapons in that they are designed to inflict bodily harm, regardless of being used for that or not.

Legal definition: The legal definition varies hugely, but essentially covers the second part of the literal definition. A weapon is something which is used to inflict bodily harm or damage. This is of course regardless of design intent and covers "benign" knives not intended to kill people, wolves, bricks, playing cards etc.

It's important that we don't mix the two here. Knives are tools. If the knives are designed with intent of being used in violence or to kill then they are weapons. It should be kept in mind that weapons are still tools, just tools to enact violence with.

I think this vorpal blades example really backs up a few of my earlier points. If you're designing knives to be used in violence then you should be able to rationalise and justify that within your moral system or you shouldn't really be doing it. Furthermore if your knives are not designed with the intent of being used for violence then you should still grasp the possibility that they innately still have a high effectiveness in violence if used in such a manner, regardless of the designer's wishes. In this case you should still be able to rationalise and justify this potential outcome within your moral compass. many designers would say that refusing to recognise this potential ethical issue is inherently irresponsible.

I'll stress once again, this is not a judgement on those who choose to design knives as weapons. I thoroughly respect work done in that field and ultimately I believe that as long as the designer/maker has properly considered the potential issues and feels justified in their process then they should be commended and the distinction between how the knife is used should fade in significance to the craftsmanship, function and beauty of the knife itself. Leave it to the maker to worry about how their creations are used, why take that burden on yourself?

Take care,
Andrew