An autonomous weapon system is a weapon that selects and applies force to targets without human intervention. It is capable of causing harm and destruction without the involvement of humans. The system uses preprogrammed algorithms and artificial intelligence systems to analyze data and find its targets. Despite the fact that humans set off the weapons, they don't know which target they are going to hit. These autonomous systems raise many ethical concerns, as well as the possibility of unintended consequences. Since there is no direct human contact with autonomous weapon systems, Sparrow's "responsibility gap" argument explains why autonomous weapon systems pose a moral dilemma. When there is no human oversight, there is a "grey area" around …show more content…
This essay argues that David Boonin's criticism of Robert Sparrow's "responsibility gap" argument is ineffective in light of the ethical concerns surrounding autonomous weapon systems (AWS). By suggesting that autonomous systems cannot be ethically evaluated or that morally recognizable humans do not have to engage in combat, Boonin's critique of Sparrow's argument raises doubt on a crucial idea. Boonin disagrees because he has a different ethical framework and wants to discuss the moral ramifications of AWS adoption in more detail. However, Boonin's critique does not go far enough in addressing the underlying problems that result from using AWS. by downplaying how important moral responsibility and moral principles are in combat. His reasoning ignores the greater societal consequences of sacrificing moral obligation in armed combat, like an increase in civilian deaths and a deterioration of moral standards. Although Boonin adds something to the ethical discussion around AWS, his criticism is ultimately lacking in offering a strong rebuttal of Sparrow's
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
The power of blind obedience taints individuals’ ability to clearly distinguish between right and wrong in terms of obedience, or disobedience, to an unjust superior. In the article “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak discusses the unwarranted murder of innocent individuals due to vague orders that did not survive with certainty. Szegedy-Maszak utilizes the tactics of authorization, routinization, and dehumanization, respectively, to attempt to justify the soldiers’ heinous actions (Szegedy-Maszak 76-77). In addition, “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” by Theodore Dalrymple distinguishes between blind disobedience and blind obedience to authority and stating that neither is superior;
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
Estlund, David. "On Following Orders in an Unjust War*." Journal of Political Philosophy 15.2 (2007): 213-234.
The world roughly hold about seven billion people. People from different backgrounds, nationality, race, but there is a high percentage of people in this world that struggle to make moral decisions on their own because they are scared of becoming an outcast, an enemy. In addition, this cycle causes people to be controlled by the society and not make decisions that would possibly better them but rather turn them into the society’s robot. In essays such as, “‘Repent Harlequin’ Said the Ticktock Man” and “Shooting an Elephant,” written by Harlan Ellison and George Orwell, respectively, each character faces a conflict with themselves by not using their own moral sense and getting faced with challenges. In the essay “Civil Disobedience,” written
In a series of experiments conducted from 1960 to 1963, American psychologist Stanley Milgram, sought to examine the relationship between obedience and authority in order to understand how Nazi doctors were able to carry out experiments on prisoners during WWII. While there are several theories about Milgram’s results, philosopher Ruwen Ogien uses the experiment as grounds for criticizing virtue ethics as a moral theory. In chapter 9 of Human Kindness and The Smell of Warm Croissant, Ogien claims that “what determines behavior is not character but other factors tied to situation” (Ogien 120). The purpose of this essay is not to interpret the results of the Milgram experiments. Instead this essay serves to argue why I am not persuaded by Ogien’s
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
Davenport’s various violations of the Code need to be considered from another point of view as an example of responsible disobedience. As Dr. Davenport and Antwone are both members of the military, there is a certain camaraderie experienced between them that the general public does not experience. Taking this into consideration, Dr. Davenport may be expressing responsible disobedience as he violates various standards in the Code in an attempt to respect the intricacies of the military culture (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2007). Because the military is a culture of its own, it is difficult to say whether any or all of the situations that resulted in an ethical violation were justified. It is easy to say that Dr. Davenport violated principle ethics during his work with Antwone but virtue ethics may support Dr. Davenport as he interpreted the standards in the context of the military culture (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2007).
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain ...
The Ethics of Gun Control The phrase "Gun Control" means different things to different people. One bumper sticker states that "Gun Control means hitting your target." However one defines gun control, the mere mention of it brings controversy.
Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
The Americans dropped two atomic bombs on Japan’s burgeoning cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in August 1945. The two atom bombs severely decimated the population in the affected cities, but who is to blame? Does blame fall upon the pilots who delivered destruction, or their superiors delivering the order? The claim of responsibility is not easy to make. To convey the convoluted concept “Banality of Evil” was introduced. In 1963 Hannah Arendt came up with this phrase in her book “Eichmann in Jerusalem” She states, “Banality of evil is a philosophical term meaning that evil occurs when ordinary individuals are put into corrupt situations that encourage their conformity”. This phrase became the foundation for many different essays, including Carol Tavris’ and Stanley Milgram’s articles “In Groups We Shrink” and “Perils of Obedience” respectively. Travis uses the concept of “Banality of Evil” to explain why individuals act differently when they are placed within groups. She uses the idea of “Banality of Evil” to explain the reason for immoral behavior of individuals within groups. She conveys this by her use of experimental evidence, historical evidence and diffusion of responsibility. Milgram incorporates Arendt’s concept to explain that authority can make an individual do unethical and immoral things. Compared to Tavris, Milgram is partially effective in using experimental and historical evidence, but is ineffective because his definition of “banality of evil” has a limited scope, dismissing fact that people have their own motives for performing an ill deed.
John Fabian Witt, “On Adopting a Posture of Moral Neutrality”, The Quarterly Dialogue Advisory Group/ 3 Quarks Daily Peace and Justice Symposium: Drones, (2013), http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2013/02/the-quarterly-dag-3qd-peace- and-justice-symposium-drones.html
The two distinct approaches to the study of war provide a lens of analysis, one practical and focused on the physical realm, the other philosophical and focused on the moral and mental realms. We have two different schools of thought regarding the nature and purpose