Even airborne pathogens could be used for good, the HIV-based one could be reengineered to transport a HIV cure while only showing mild symptoms of the common cold. Or cure cancer with it.

Technology is not power. It enables power. If you engineer the technology to enable only a specific kind of power, then you the engineer and the technology you made can be called evil.

Otherwise I would like you to point me to the particle of malice in the hammer and pathogen. The atom of injustice and evil that it's made of.

> Technology is not power. It enables power. If you engineer the technology to enable only a specific kind of power, then you the engineer and the technology you made can be called evil.

That's a clear contradiction. One one hand you acknowledge the choice of the technologist to be a power of evil, on the other you surmise that, as long as they are willfully ignorant to how the tech is used, they are merely a conduit of political power. It sounds like denial of an uncomfortable truth.

Not necessarily. I acknowledge that a technologist with the goal of doing evil can use technology to achieve that goal.

But a technologist with the goal to do good or neutral will be able to use the same technology to achieve the goal.

Technology itself is ignorant of how it is used, it's not a human. The tools, the technology, remains ignorant of how it's used even if it's for evil because ultimately it's the human wielding the tool that does evil.

You may call technology only made for evil purposes evil if you want (I did say "can be called evil", not "must be called evil").

Or otherwise, did the technology choose to be evil? Was it asked and did it consent to be evil? Where is it's atom of injustice in the tool? Or for software, where is the bit that is evil?

If I make a thousand hammers and use one to murder, are all hammers evil?

I find it dangerous to use chains to bind evil, consider a doctor saving a life and then the patient murders someone. Is the doctor evil? Are the tools of the doctor evil? Should doctors consider if a patient might do evil?

The same process should be applied to tools as well. If a tool is used to save a life and then a life is taken, is the tool evil? What if it doesn't save a life beforehand, is is now evil? How much live must it save before doing evil to be neutral?

That is why I consider technology neutral (even if you may call it evil it remains neutral in nature, not in use), once you allow technology to become moral and political, you open the can of worms that is the consideration if evil is what enables evil in any possible form or shape.