Ethics of robots/drones/unmanned machines use in war

[Dimmauk]

They used drones on us on 9/11. They cant be mad that we are doing it to them now.

[Waraji]

They used drones on us on 9/11. They cant be mad that we are doing it to them now.

By They, clearly, you mean We. I mean if your going to go there, might as well go balls deep.

I'm against nonsensical war, but since we're a race bent on destroying each other, I support the use of unmanned drones. Although I do not agree with the legalistic loopholes that are being thrown around for the purpose feigning war.

[Tyrath]

Is it not an assembly line anymore when human workers get replaced by robots? War is war, doesn't matter who is doing it. But using drones instead of human lives is still slightly better I guess.

[notorious bum]

Drones have only been "better" for the military muscle, those fuckers have raised the amount of civilian casualties overseas to such dumbfounding levels that they have resorted to deadface lying about the "terrorists" they are killing and have decided that ANY adult male is considered a murdering, Jack of Spades, terrorist, until proven innocent(LOL whoops, can't hear your testimony when you're dead).

[Churchill]

Yea. I'd question your sources but then again, if the news says that Mohammad Abdullah claims the US killed 74 women and children in his village well by fucking golly it must be true.

[Churchill]

btw this is the same news that you rail against in another breath so your opinion sucks and you should feel bad.

[hey]

Drones have only been "better" for the military muscle, those fuckers have raised the amount of civilian casualties overseas to such dumbfounding levels that they have resorted to deadface lying about the "terrorists" they are killing and have decided that ANY adult male is considered a murdering, Jack of Spades, terrorist, until proven innocent(LOL whoops, can't hear your testimony when you're dead).

Drones don't kill people, people kill people.

[Ksandra]

Anyway, moving away from the legal issue i mentioned and more towards ethics: i'm concerned about people's capacity to judge an act as ethical, the farther away and more removed they are from the act itself. Deontologically, there is no issue since the intent behind the act matters regardless of the means, but i think if you consider it from a utalitarian perspective, then there's a problem. Some utalitarians might say that as long as a drone attack leads to the most good possible, it's ethical (ex: leading to the least amount of death, out of all possible military alternatives), but i think the ability to judge the ethicality of a consequence is perverted when you start to get more detached from the act itself.

For a deontologist though, this is a no brainer. Military drone use is antiethical, because given how unprecise they are in their killings, they often kill innocent people. Killing innocent people as collateral is akin to trearing people themselves as means to an end, and therefore military drone use is not ethical. But you could use this argument to say that since, very often, military action kills or harms innocent people, then warfare is always unethical. So it wouldn't be limited to drones

makes me think of Ender's Game and Asimov's 3 laws of robotics. In the case of Ender's Game, it does give an idea that detaching the humans from the action can lead to unnecessary mass destruction. Asimov makes me think (while slippery slope) that I dunno if we really want to go down the robotic path in war because while we may not want robots making decisions, that doesn't mean the military won't.

[Salodin]

Something something, Gundam Wing, something something.

[Kyte]

Gundam 00 was the one that came to mind for me, the political commentary they slipped in was pretty obvious lol

[Ashmada]

Anyway, moving away from the legal issue i mentioned and more towards ethics: i'm concerned about people's capacity to judge an act as ethical, the farther away and more removed they are from the act itself. Deontologically, there is no issue since the intent behind the act matters regardless of the means, but i think if you consider it from a utalitarian perspective, then there's a problem. Some utalitarians might say that as long as a drone attack leads to the most good possible, it's ethical (ex: leading to the least amount of death, out of all possible military alternatives), but i think the ability to judge the ethicality of a consequence is perverted when you start to get more detached from the act itself.

For a deontologist though, this is a no brainer. Military drone use is antiethical, because given how unprecise they are in their killings, they often kill innocent people. Killing innocent people as collateral is akin to trearing people themselves as means to an end, and therefore military drone use is not ethical. But you could use this argument to say that since, very often, military action kills or harms innocent people, then warfare is always unethical. So it wouldn't be limited to drones

Heh, ethical distance is hardly a novel concept, it's a simple consequence of emotional distance.

The utilitarian (pragmatist) viewpoint is somewhat less simple when you try to put it in practice: how does one measure what the "most good" is?
Major actions such as these have far-reaching consequences, and even if you restrict your definition of "most good" as "most beneficial to the average US citizen's safety", you can never be sure whether the strike helped or not.

The deontologist (principled) viewpoint is fine in theory, but once again somewhat murkier when considering reality: collateral is unavoidable.*
At which point, the problem becomes quantifying the amount of collateral that is acceptable or not.

(using "amount" to describe human lives seems quite wrong)


*Well, not completely. I haz solution for resolve all conflicts without collateral! Champions. In every conflict, the heads of the states/organisations involved fight in a gladiatorial spectacle (yes, TV cameras are involved) to the death. Only weapons allowed: prison shivs.
Al Quaeda has a beef with the US? Obama or Romney fight Al Zawahiri to the death, if the latter wins, Sharia for all americans; if the former wins, the Ka'aba is destroyed to make way for a McDonalds.
During the fights, one track would be blaring through speakers, always the same:

[notorious bum]

btw this is the same news that you rail against in another breath so your opinion sucks and you should feel bad.

I'll take Jeremy Scahill's reports from the ground over any shitty op-ed piece you may find readily in the news.

It's already been mentioned in the mainstream news about the new labeling of terrorists. Old news is old. I'd rather not even bother discussing the laughable accuracy of these planes or how awesome assassination works with missiles and bad(no) intelligence.

[Churchill]

So you're choosing a news source and denouncing others to suit your views, got it.

[Andalusian girls]

Robotics is one of the rising avenues, perhaps the dominant one, of warfare and to not excel in it is to fall behind some more imaginative rival.

be wary of autonomy in the more sophisticated models to come but other than that, if you ain't first you're last

[Rhyis.]

Gundam 00 was the one that came to mind for me, the political commentary they slipped in was pretty obvious lol

Macross Plus did it first.

[Rhinox]

Yea. I'd question your sources but then again, if the news says that Mohammad Abdullah claims the US killed 74 women and children in his village well by fucking golly it must be true.

Quick someone link the Colbert report segment on what the United States considers an enemy combatant.

[Waraji]

I vaguely remember the food hoarding, bullet stockpiling part.

[notorious bum]

So you're choosing a news source and denouncing others to suit your views, got it.

I'm choosing independent journalism over narratives and "how I feels" that are rampant on the news/newstands. It helps not having to worry about facts and stuff when forming opinions, though. Lord knows the government would never try to influence the media or inject blatant lies into stories to help sell a narrative.

related:

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/2...one_strikes_in

Study Finds U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Miss Militant Targets and "Terrorize" Civilians

A new report on the secret U.S. drone war in Pakistan says the attacks have killed far more civilians than acknowledged, traumatized a nation and undermined international law. In "Living Under Drones," researchers conclude the drone strikes "terrorize men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities." The study concludes that most of the militants killed in the strikes have been low-level targets whose deaths have failed to make the United States any safer. Just 2 percent of drone attack victims are said to be top militant leaders.

"a new joint report by the Stanford and New York University law schools on the use of drones in Pakistan reveal the strikes have killed far more civilians than American officials have previously acknowledged. In addition, the study says the drones have alienated the Pakistani public and undermined international law."

[Ashmada]

Sure has gotten quite tinfoil hat in here lately.

[notorious bum]

Nobody is citing Alex Jones articles here, so you're gonna need to explain yourself.

I did try to find the Colbert clip, but ended up just watching last night's DS and CB episodes that I missed lol