The debate surrounding the morality and ethics of unmanned systems is nothing new. From the first announcement of their use in military conflicts questions have risen as to the moral implications. This debate and concern continues today, and has grown arguably more vocal in public and political circles. The intent behind UAS is good, but like any technological advancement there are concerns and questions that are asked, and rightfully so. My thoughts on the subject are as follows.
UAS Ethics and Morality
Abstract
The militant use of unmanned aircraft systems has raised many issues and concerns, particularly with the general public. The view toward UAS has been one of interest and concern, namely in the moral and ethical aspects surrounding its use. There are two major areas within the UAS debate that should be addressed; first, the current method of which we utilize this technology, and secondly, the future implications of this technology.
Current Methods
The current use of UAS raises ethical concerns as to how this technology influences aspects of war in terms of target identification, and how we conduct war. In the terms of Linda Johansson, UAS can make war seem “risk free”. Johansson’s view, one that is shared by much of the general public, is that this risk-free approach to war gives way to ignorance of human life and will only lower the threshold for starting war (Johansson, 2011). The argument therefore lies in a comparison to what “traditional” war time actions include, versus this new approach using UAS.
For the purpose of this paper the term “traditionally” is used to convey current and past methods. Traditionally, manned aircraft conduct all airborne operations - from intelligence to combat. This places a human in the battlefield and raises the risk and consequences of conducting war. It is for these reasons that if you remove the human element there is a fear people will conduct war recklessly or without just reasoning due to the direct risk and consequences being associated with the human element being removed from the battlefield. Kreps put it this way, “…we argue that UAVs—by shielding U.S. soldiers from injury in the field—both insulate the U.S. domestic population from the effects of an on-going war and allow strategists to avoid the logical and ethical pitfalls associated with advances in technology (Kreps, 2012).” These are just concerns, and so, many people and organizations believe new legislation and laws of war be either created, or reviewed, in light of the rise of UAS usage.
What the Future Holds
The future implications of UAS lead to a separate but equally justified concern; that allowing UAS to go unchecked into war time operations will lead to further distancing between human ethics and the way in which we conduct war. Distancing, in this instance, refers to the amount in which the human element is involved in the UAS process. Critics and proponents alike believe UAS will give way to automated technologies. Automation can, theoretically, allow for the use of UAS or other robotic technology that can identify, target, and even kill, on their own without a human element in the processing loop. Given the current state of UAS technology, even though it is growing in popularity, it is safe to assume UAS will not be implementing automation (at least successfully) any time soon. The issues behind operation and accident rates are still too high to jump to any hasty conclusions as to what the future will bring. These fears of an automated killing UAS in the future are a bit premature, however they are effecting current legislation considerations.
Conclusion
Given these two areas of concern, both the current and future ethical implications of remote warfare, it can be determined that the correct – moral - path is not visible. Like many military, if not all, military technologies; the ethics behind the use of UAS are best determined by a case by case analysis. When armored vehicles first entered the battlefield, or machine guns fired for the first time, there were those who viewed them with moral concern. Then, like now, it can be argued that armor or any type of technology that gives the user the “upper hand” can be viewed as ethically wrong. The correct action therefore is to continue to develop UAS into a more reliable and efficient military platform, and use it in a manner that adheres to the current laws of war, as well as ethics. No one knows what the future will bring or what technology may rise that will make UAS obsolete or unnecessary. It is for these reasons UAS operations should continue; the cancellation of UAS programs will not slow the rise of automation. If time has shown humans anything, it is that technology progresses no matter what. If we do not utilize the technology as it comes, someone else will. The best action to take, therefore, is to use what technology comes along in a matter consistent with the laws, morals, and ethics found in all humans, and their societies.
Resources:
Johansson, Linda (2014). Is It Morally Right to Use Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
in War? (2011). Philosophy & Technology, Vol. 24, Sep, 2011. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1023032172/abstract?accountid=27203
Kreps, Sarah (2014). The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A Legal
and Ethical Analysis (2012). Polity, Vol. 44, April, 2012. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/992898373/fulltextPDF?accountid=27203
No comments:
Post a Comment