Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
180319 Ethics Lecture Beard (technological advancements and killing…
180319 Ethics Lecture Beard
moral priorities in war
protect the innocent
do no more harm than necessary
advance morally good goals :question:
retain humanity
technological advancements and killing
enhanced war fighters
so
clarify the distinction between physical and moral couraged
require better understanding of emotions in decision making
staggered force reduction
opportunity
reduced casualties
fighters and civilians
enhanced decision making
potentially reduced atrocity rates
decreased force size
risk
what is an enhancement?
so is it really an enhancement?
assist with ethical decision making? a human that didn't feel emotion?
what about emotion as a positive in warfighting?
but what about the role of emotion in ethical decision making?
still human?
how can they relate to society?
veterans? who controls veterans bodies?
how would it effect individual being advanced inc informed consent
can it be made mandatory?
lethal autonomous weapon systems
so
clear responsibilities
how is this achieved?
maintain human authorisation to kill
don't do it?
opportunity
reduced civilian casualties
make it ineffective :question:
potentially better decision making
achieves mass
risks
how to achieve human oversight
how we understand how it works? so be comfortable with its decisions
potentially no room for discretion
lower threshold of conflict as reduce the risk
errors in algorithm / database
how does it learn motive?
armed unmanned drones
so to mitigate
enhanced ethic controls
moral restraint
is this achieveable :question:
how to make this effective?
forward deployed pilots
so remain in the theatre of war
opportunity
ability to conduct missions where it would otherwise be too risky
increased precision
potential reduction of civilian casualties
:question:
decreased risks to manned pilots
risk
increased missions
more damage
detachment
moral detachment
physical
lower threshold for war
popular support reduces when bodies start coming home so less likely for a popular backlash
local of control becomes a legitimate target extends area of battlefield
moral injury
can observed targets in 'normal life'
mil wants efficiency, effectiveness
so is this just that with the best tech wins :question: as is often the case :question:
underlying philosophies
risk free killing?
can not kill if willing to die for a causes?
moral equality is based on the contest inherent to war
risk free or risk transfered
humanity is a flaw in combat
emotions are problematic
:question:
strategic asymmetry
we want it but don't want others to have it
but fairness
can have a clean war or fair war but you can't have both (David Rodin)
so three options
tie one hand behind your back - refuse to resort to tactics of our enemies
hold self to a higher standard to allow the enemy to fight conventionally
fight dirty
doesn't this happen (at least to some extent) :question:
Virtue and military ethics
values dissonace
self and organisation
within organisation
coaltions
you and the enemy
so
don't consider ethics and politics as binary
prudence
practical decision making capability
best defined military leadership (Aquinas)
he who reasons well about the realisation of a particular end, such as victory, is prudent
so
dual obligations of winners
win and win well
both possible
focus on common goals (Allen)
limited military outcome to generate good
economy of force
no destruction beyond need
synergies beyond strategy
are some ethical issues strategic failures?
failures of foresight? imagination?
crowning virtue of virtues
Courage, Obedience, Humility Obama and Petreaus
Petreaus remaining true to recommended withdrawal date as strategic aims will not be made - Obama did not agree
so options
obey
avoid complicity
as he say his duty to achieve strategic goals
candid obedience
what Petreaus did
1 more item...
disobey
inc public dissent
valuable in certain circumstances
situational
disciplined disobedience
4 more items...
resign
courage
binds the wlil to be firmly bound in the face of the greatest evils (death) Aquinas
so courage is for something good
but is death the greatest evil
modern courage
can we think about courage in a risk free environment
more to the military than those involved directly in killing
so a reduction in physical risk
:question:
but physical courage remains a noble thing
does risk free warfare transfer risk to a separate domain?