|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 14:10 Post subject: The Moral Hazard of Drones |
|
 |
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/the-moral-hazard-of-drones/
| Quote: | As the debate on the morality of the United States’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles (“U.A.V.’s,” also known as drones) has intensified in recent weeks, several news and opinion articles have appeared in the media. Two, in particular, both published this month, reflect the current ethical divide on the issue. A feature article in Esquire by Tom Junod censured the “Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama” for the administration’s policy of targeted killings of suspected militants; another, “The Moral Case for Drones,” a news analysis by The Times’ Scott Shane, gathered opinions from experts that implicitly commended the administration for replacing Dresden-style strategic bombing with highly precise attacks that minimize collateral damage.
Amid this discussion, we suggest that an allegory might be helpful to illustrate some of the many moral perils of drone use that have been overlooked. It shows that our attempts to avoid obvious ethical pitfalls of actions like firebombing may leave us vulnerable to other, more subtle, moral dangers.
While drones have become the weapons of our age, the moral dilemma that drone warfare presents is not new. In fact, it is very, very old:
Once upon a time, in a quiet corner of the Middle East, there lived a shepherd named Gyges. Despite the hardships in his life Gyges was relatively satisfied with his meager existence. Then, one day, he found a ring buried in a nearby cave.
This was no ordinary ring; it rendered its wearer invisible. With this new power, Gyges became increasingly dissatisfied with his simple life. Before long, he seduced the queen of the land and began to plot the overthrow of her husband. One evening, Gyges placed the ring on his finger, sneaked into the royal palace, and murdered the king.
In his “Republic,” Plato recounts this tale, but does not tell us the details of the murder. Still, we can rest assured that, like any violent death, it was not a pleasant affair. However, the story ends well, at least for Gyges. He marries the queen and assumes the position of king.
This story, which is as old as Western ethics itself, is meant to elicit a particular moral response from us: disgust. So why do we find Plato’s story so appalling?
Maybe it’s the way that the story replaces moral justification with practical efficiency: Gyges’ being able to commit murder without getting caught, without any real difficulty, does not mean he is justified in doing so. (Expediency is not necessarily a virtue.)
Maybe it’s the way that Gyges’ ring obscures his moral culpability: it’s difficult to blame a person you can’t see, and even harder to bring them to justice.
Maybe it’s that Gyges is successful in his plot: a wicked act not only goes unpunished, but is rewarded.
Maybe it’s the nagging sense that any kingdom based on such deception could not be a just one: what else might happen in such a kingdom under the cover of darkness?
Our disgust with Gyges could be traced to any one of these concerns, or to all of them.
One might argue that the myth of Gyges is a suitable allegory to describe the combatants who have attacked and killed American civilians and troops in the last 10 years. A shepherd from the Middle East discovers that he has the power of invisibility, the power to strike a fatal blow against a more powerful adversary, the power to do so without getting caught, the power to benefit from his deception. These, after all, are the tactics of terrorism.
But the myth of Gyges is really a story about modern counterterrorism, not terrorism.
We believe a stronger comparison can be made between the myth and the moral dangers of employing precision guided munitions and drone technologies to target suspected terrorists. What is distinctive about the tale of Gyges is the ease with which he can commit murder and get away scot-free. The technological advantage provided by the ring ends up serving as the justification of its use.
Terrorists, whatever the moral value of their deeds, may be found and punished; as humans they are subject to retribution, whether it be corporal or legal. They may lose or sacrifice their lives. They may, in fact, be killed in the middle of the night by a drone. Because remote controlled machines cannot suffer these consequences, and the humans who operate them do so at a great distance, the myth of Gyges is more a parable of modern counterterrorism than it is about terrorism.
Only recently has the use of drones begun to touch on questions of morality. Perhaps it’s because the answers to these questions appear self-evident. What could be wrong with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles? After all, they limit the cost of war, in terms of both blood and treasure. The U.S. troops who operate them can maintain safer stand-off positions in Eastern Europe or at home. And armed with precision-guided munitions, these drones are said to limit collateral damage. In 2009, Leon Panetta, who was then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said, U.A.V.’s are “very precise and very limited in terms of collateral damage … the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership.” What could be wrong with all this?
Quite a bit, it turns out.
Return, for a minute, to the moral disgust that Gyges evokes in us. Gyges also risked very little in attacking the king. The success of his mission was almost assured, thanks to the technological advantage of his ring. Gyges could sneak past the king’s guards unscathed, so he did not need to kill anyone he did not intend on killing. These are the facts of the matter.
What we find unsettling here is the idea that these facts could be confused for moral justification. Philosophers find this confusion particularly abhorrent and guard against it with the only weapon they have: a distinction. The “fact-value distinction” holds that statements of fact should never be confused with statements of value. More strongly put, this distinction means that statements of fact do not even imply statements of value. “Can” does not imply “ought.” To say that we can target individuals without incurring troop casualties does not imply that, we ought to.
This seems so obvious. But, as Peter W. Singer noted earlier this year in The Times, when the Obama administration was asked why continued U.S. military strikes in the Middle East did not constitute a violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, it responded that such activities did not “involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof.” The justification of these strikes rested solely on their ease. The Ring of Gyges has the power to obscure the obvious.
This issue has all the hallmarks of what economists and philosophers call a “moral hazard” — a situation in which greater risks are taken by individuals who are able to avoid shouldering the cost associated with these risks. It thus seems wise, if not convenient, to underscore several ethical points if we are to avoid our own “Gyges moment.”
First, we might remember Marx’s comment that “the windmill gives you a society with the feudal lord; the steam engine gives you one with the industrial capitalist.” And precision guided munitions and drones give you a society with perpetual asymmetric wars.
The creation of technology is a value-laden enterprise. It creates the material conditions of culture and society and therefore its creation should be regarded as always already moral and political in nature. However, technology itself (the physical stuff of robotic warfare) is neither smart nor dumb, moral nor immoral. It can be used more or less precisely, but precision and efficiency are not inherently morally good. Imagine a very skilled dentist who painlessly removes the wrong tooth. Imagine a drone equipped with a precision guided munition that kills a completely innocent person, but spares the people who live in his or her neighborhood. The use of impressive technologies does not grant one impressive moral insight. Indeed, as Gyges demonstrates, the opposite can be the case.
Second, assassination and targeted killings have always been in the repertoires of military planners, but never in the history of warfare have they been so cheap and easy. The relatively low number of troop casualties for a military that has turned to drones means that there is relatively little domestic blowback against these wars. The United States and its allies have created the material conditions whereby these wars can carry on indefinitely. The non-combatant casualty rates in populations that are attacked by drones are slow and steady, but they add up. That the casualty rates are relatively low by historical standards — this is no Dresden — is undoubtedly a good thing, but it may allow the international media to overlook pesky little facts like the slow accretion of foreign casualties.
Third, the impressive expediency and accuracy in drone targeting may also allow policymakers and strategists to become lax in their moral decision-making about who exactly should be targeted. Consider the stark contrast between the ambiguous language used to define legitimate targets and the specific technical means a military uses to neutralize these targets. The terms “terrorist,” “enemy combatant,” and “contingent threat” are extremely vague and do very little to articulate the legitimacy of military targets. In contrast, the technical capabilities of weapon systems define and “paint” these targets with ever-greater definition. As weaponry becomes more precise, the language of warfare has become more ambiguous.
This ambiguity has, for example, altered the discourse surrounding the issue of collateral damage. There are two very different definitions of collateral damage, and these definitions affect the truth of the following statement: “Drone warfare and precision guided munitions limit collateral damage.” One definition views collateral damage as the inadvertent destruction of property and persons in a given attack. In other words, collateral damage refers to “stuff we don’t mean to blow up.” Another definition characterizes collateral damage as objects or individuals “that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time.” In other words, collateral damage refers to “the good guys.” Since 1998, this is the definition that has been used. What is the difference between these definitions?
The first is a description of technical capabilities (being able to hit X while not hitting Y); the second is a normative and indeed legal judgment about who is and is not innocent (and therefore who is a legitimate target and who is not). The first is a matter of fact, the second a matter of value. There is an important difference between these statements, and they should not be confused.
Fourth, questions of combatant status should be the subject of judicial review and moral scrutiny. Instead, if these questions are asked at all, they are answered as if they were mere matters of fact, unilaterally, behind closed doors, rather than through transparent due process. That moral reasoning has become even more slippery of late, as the American government has implied that all military aged males in a strike area are legitimate targets: a “guilt by association” designation.
Finally, as the strategic repertoires of modern militaries expand to include drones and precision guided munitions, it is not at all clear that having more choices leads strategists to make better and more informed ones. In asking, “Is More Choice Better Than Less?” the philosopher Gerald Dworkin once argued that the answer is “not always.” In the words of Kierkegaard: “In possibility everything is possible. Hence in possibility one can go astray in all possible ways.”
Some might object that these guidelines set unrealistically high expectations on military strategists and policymakers. They would probably be right. But no one — except Gyges — said that being ethical was easy.
NOTE
For a broader treatment of this argument see John Kaag and Whitley Kaufman’s “Military Frameworks: Technological Know-How and the Legitimization of Warfare” in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs (2009) also Sarah Kreps and John Kaag’s “The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A Legal and Ethical Analysis” in Polity (2012). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 15:37 Post subject: |
|
|
Killing off terrorists while preserving the lives of soldiers. Whats there not to like about em, there may be civilian casualties too, however lives don't actually have the same value, and anyone would much rather preserve the life of a soldier than that of an inbred animal.
Lutzifer: temp ban. That "inbred animals" comment is racist / supremacist bullshit, which we tend to not tolerate around here as you might have noticed.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 16:15 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rage wrote: | | Killing off terrorists while preserving the lives of soldiers. Whats there not to like about em, there may be civilian casualties too, however lives don't actually have the same value, and anyone would much rather preserve the life of a soldier than that of an inbred animal. |
wow...
Well you obviously have no clue on what humanity is. Racism at its finest!
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 16:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Cry racism all you want, but if you would be presented with the choice of either saving a trained soldier or some uneducated iraki, what would you do?
Clown Fiesta
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vaifan1986
Posts: 4638
Location: Birthplace of the necktie.
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 17:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rage wrote: | | Cry racism all you want, but if you would be presented with the choice of either saving a trained soldier or some uneducated iraki, what would you do? |
You're joking, right?
All life has value, regardless of birthplace.
And how can you equate a human being with an inbred animal?
Micek:
i7 4790K @ 4.6GHz- Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming 3 - 980 WF3 \o/ - 16GB Corsair - WD 4TB - Mountain of SSDs - Dell UltraSharp U2414H 24''
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 17:26 Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't say it didn't have value, i said it's not of EQUAL value. As for your question, that comes easy after reading the stories of children having bombs strapped to their chests, and many others.
Clown Fiesta
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vaifan1986
Posts: 4638
Location: Birthplace of the necktie.
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 17:56 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rage wrote: | | I didn't say it didn't have value, i said it's not of EQUAL value. As for your question, that comes easy after reading the stories of children having bombs strapped to their chests, and many others. |
No, they do have equal value. Just because one has had the benefit of three full meals a day, education, indoor plumbing and electricity doesn't make him any more valuable.
It's just that we tend to value human life by it's usefullness to society, it's marketabilty or how good it looks on camera.
A
Micek:
i7 4790K @ 4.6GHz- Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming 3 - 980 WF3 \o/ - 16GB Corsair - WD 4TB - Mountain of SSDs - Dell UltraSharp U2414H 24''
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 18:06 Post subject: |
|
|
well those soldiers wouldnt be in danger if not occupy countries that never harmed you or could harm you.
who decides what a terrorist is, is someone fighting an occupation a terrorist? french resistance were heroes when they fought occupation.
its almost comical to believe that the USA has proof of every single one that those would somehow be at the american beaches ready to blow themselves up.
it actually creates terrorists, the failed NY bomber did it cause of all the civilians being killed in wariztan.
Its nothing but murder, but when you use the military or paramilitary(CIA) its ok. innocent and cilivians arent just killed on "accident" but also targetted specificly for example the 16 year old in pakistan who wanted to report on the civilians killed got a hellfire rained on him within days. AL alawki's son ( and i can argue about his father ) who was also 16 or 17 got specificly targetted by drone strike, what was his crime?
Why is this happening you might ask? its cause of obamas insecurity and urge for power. during the campaign he got bombarded with the "you are weak on terorrism" line. Now he is trying to outdo the conservatives to win the election.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 18:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| vaifan1986 wrote: | | Rage wrote: | | I didn't say it didn't have value, i said it's not of EQUAL value. As for your question, that comes easy after reading the stories of children having bombs strapped to their chests, and many others. |
No, they do have equal value. Just because one has had the benefit of three full meals a day, education, indoor plumbing and electricity doesn't make him any more valuable.
It's just that we tend to value human life by it's usefullness to society, it's marketabilty or how good it looks on camera.
A |
All the things that you described are actually what makes a man. While unfortunately this is not really the case anymore, i still believe in survival of the fittest, and i'll probably settle with agreeing to disagree, since we have different views on the matter.
As for you Paintface, i don't disagree with anything you said, but it's gone into the realm of motivation, while my interest in the topic was simply about using UAV's instead of soldiers.
Civilians being killed to hide an ugly truth and everything else, is still going to happen, even if they use a UAV, some air strike or a soldier force but that wasn't the point of my argument.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 18:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rage wrote: | | I didn't say it didn't have value, i said it's not of EQUAL value.... |
And that is textbook example of racism...
All life has equal value, it's just that different surroundings will have different impact on how someone will use his life.
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 18:43 Post subject: |
|
|
Again with the racism bullshit? How do you quantify a lifes value then, if not by the impact they have on society?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 18:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: |
All life has equal value |
That's what everyone likes to say, but society sure doesn't treat everyone equally.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 18:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rage wrote: | | Again with the racism bullshit? How do you quantify a lifes value then, if not by the impact they have on society? |
you dont , we has class system in the middle ages, if you are into that i urge you to take a time machine or learn to accept everyone has the same rights and value on this planet
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 18:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Paintface wrote: | | Rage wrote: | | Again with the racism bullshit? How do you quantify a lifes value then, if not by the impact they have on society? |
you dont , we has class system in the middle ages, if you are into that i urge you to take a time machine or learn to accept everyone has the same rights and value on this planet |
Won't dignify that nonsense with a proper response. lol.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 19:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rage wrote: | | Paintface wrote: | | Rage wrote: | | Again with the racism bullshit? How do you quantify a lifes value then, if not by the impact they have on society? |
you dont , we has class system in the middle ages, if you are into that i urge you to take a time machine or learn to accept everyone has the same rights and value on this planet |
Won't dignify that nonsense with a proper response. lol. |
if its nonsense then you can easely argue against it, so bring it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 19:16 Post subject: |
|
|
Very well, where exactly were class systems mentioned, anywhere in this thread? How do class systems fit in to any part of our discussion?
Pulling some bullshit reason out of your ass and then basing an absolute truth on it does not an argument make.
Clown Fiesta
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 19:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rage wrote: | Very well, where exactly were class systems mentioned, anywhere in this thread? How do class systems fit in to any part of our discussion?
Pulling some bullshit reason out of your ass and then basing an absolute truth on it does not an argument make. |
cause that was when life wasnt valued equal, right now in front of the law everyone is equal rightwise, benefitwise , in court etc.
you try to argue how life is valued , and i say there is no difference, your life is equal no matter your job, no matter your race etc.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 19:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| inz wrote: | | dingo_d wrote: |
All life has equal value |
That's what everyone likes to say, but society sure doesn't treat everyone equally. |
That's the problem of the society. The fact stands that if all of us had the same living conditions, we would all be the same. Every man has the potential of greatness (excluding the ppl with mental diabilities, since they are really in a worse position due to the genetics).
As you've said yourself, the society is the problem...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 20:41 Post subject: |
|
|
I think UAVs are no different from the various guided missiles almost every modern army uses since the 50's. They are just a remote controlled platform for launching various types of ordnance over a certain enemy. In war, you have to minimise the casualties on your side, by all means possible.
A military pilot is such a huge investment, you just cannot afford to lose one (ore more, if it's a multicrew aircraft) to a lucky SAM / MANPAD shot. So yeah, using the war ethics, the UAVs are totally acceptable. Hell, if i was some supreme commander and had UAVs, i'd use them all over to launch Hellfires, Mavericks and cluster bombs. I'd use manned aircraft only for the most impredictable, highly sensitive missions, where the human factor is capital in order to be successfull.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 21:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Cluster bombs are now banned FYI and have been for some years. They were banned due to the large number of bomblets which do not explode causing a hazard to innocent people who may re-enter the area and touch the bomblets a few days later.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 21:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | Cluster bombs are now banned FYI and have been for some years. They were banned due to the large number of bomblets which do not explode causing a hazard to innocent people who may re-enter the area and touch the bomblets a few days later. |
I know they were banned. Yet they were used extensively both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and further development continues (see JSOW). That was not the point of my comment anyway.
PS: Now that you brought it up, i remember that using the .50 caliber directly towards enemy combatants was also banned some years ago . Yet the US soldiers used the .50 cal weapons (M2 HMG, Barrett \ McMillan sniper rifles) in such forbidden ways, and when questioned they claimed they were aiming at the enemy combatants canteens (they even fired the 30 mm Apache cannon towards Iraqi infantry - i assume you know what a 30 mm round does to a person, if you were in the army). I don't blame them, i'd do anything to stay alive in real combat situation. There are no ethics in war, you have to take advantage of anything that keeps you alive.
Last edited by BloodySpy on Tue, 24th Jul 2012 21:43; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 21:43 Post subject: |
|
|
The anti-armor round ban against infantry is fucking stupid IMO.
It's banned because it maims the enemy combatant to much. But it's not like those being shot are going to suffer. They are going to die instantly.
Further, they use those anti-armor sniper rifles on infantry because of the simple fact that they have so much energy behind them that their effective range is much farther out. When you are talking about Afghanistan this a benefit as they are shooting people 1km+ away on the other side of a valley.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Jul 2012 21:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | The anti-armor round ban against infantry is fucking stupid IMO.
It's banned because it maims the enemy combatant to much. But it's not like those being shot are going to suffer. They are going to die instantly.
Further, they use those anti-armor sniper rifles on infantry because of the simple fact that they have so much energy behind them that their effective range is much farther out. When you are talking about Afghanistan this a benefit as they are shooting people 1km+ away on the other side of a valley. |
Actually....no. It really depends on where you are shot with the .50 round. It's important to say that most of .50 cal ammo is not "true" AP, they are named "anti-materiel" just because of the large caliber, which is actually capable of ripping through an lightly-armored vehicle engine block.
If you hit an enemy combatant with a .50 in the arm, or the leg - it will rip that limb apart, yet they will die of shock in hours. That was the main reason for the ban.
Yet i say you are right : in war you have to take any advantage to keep you alive. You have a .50 cal Barrett rifle ? See an outranged enemy ? Take the goddamn shot, rip him in half, do whatever it takes to see you through the war.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_SiN_
Megatron
Posts: 12108
Location: Cybertron
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 25th Jul 2012 00:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 25th Jul 2012 01:32 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 25th Jul 2012 01:35 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
