I started typing up something about technology and morality but I thought better about it, I'll take a different tack.
Your post is racist. Now, I'm going to assume that it is not intentionally racist, but it has the same ultimate effect.
Let me explain.
There are many different types of prejudice. There is prejudicial hatred, that tends to be obvious and blatant but is also people's stereotypical example of the sort of prejudice that we should all fight against. There's also something that people call "the soft bigotry of low expectations", and this is also pretty bad. It manifests itself in forms such as "well, that's pretty good... for a girl" or "for an Indian" or what-have-you. This is a pernicious sort of prejudice because it affects how people are treated, what sorts of opportunities people have, etc. But for the perpetrators of it can feel more justified and less morally wrong than more blatant racism.
But there's a semi-related form of prejudice which I'll call paternalism. It's where you remove agency and culpability from certain folks and rest responsibility in the hands of "more developed" people. This is even more pernicious than low expectations because it sort of feels like you're doing the victims a favor. By taking away moral responsibility and devolving it on oneself it may seem like you are accepting a burden for someone else. But in reality you are denying them agency, denying them responsibility, and diminishing them as people. All human beings are responsible for their own actions, and to treat them like children or animals by denying them the responsibility for their deeds is incredibly dehumanizing.
So to answer your question, no, the makers of the Samsung Galaxy do not have a moral obligation for creating a device which can serve as a compass, even though a compass can be used to point a weapon. That responsibility lies with, and should never be removed from, the individual who uses the device.
Your post is racist. Now, I'm going to assume that it is not intentionally racist, but it has the same ultimate effect.
Let me explain.
There are many different types of prejudice. There is prejudicial hatred, that tends to be obvious and blatant but is also people's stereotypical example of the sort of prejudice that we should all fight against. There's also something that people call "the soft bigotry of low expectations", and this is also pretty bad. It manifests itself in forms such as "well, that's pretty good... for a girl" or "for an Indian" or what-have-you. This is a pernicious sort of prejudice because it affects how people are treated, what sorts of opportunities people have, etc. But for the perpetrators of it can feel more justified and less morally wrong than more blatant racism.
But there's a semi-related form of prejudice which I'll call paternalism. It's where you remove agency and culpability from certain folks and rest responsibility in the hands of "more developed" people. This is even more pernicious than low expectations because it sort of feels like you're doing the victims a favor. By taking away moral responsibility and devolving it on oneself it may seem like you are accepting a burden for someone else. But in reality you are denying them agency, denying them responsibility, and diminishing them as people. All human beings are responsible for their own actions, and to treat them like children or animals by denying them the responsibility for their deeds is incredibly dehumanizing.
So to answer your question, no, the makers of the Samsung Galaxy do not have a moral obligation for creating a device which can serve as a compass, even though a compass can be used to point a weapon. That responsibility lies with, and should never be removed from, the individual who uses the device.