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:
technological advancements and killing
enhanced war fighters
clarify the distinction between physical and moral couraged
require better understanding of emotions in decision making
staggered force reduction
fighters and civilians
enhanced decision making
potentially reduced atrocity rates
decreased force size
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?
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
how is this achieved?
maintain human authorisation to kill
don't do it?
reduced civilian casualties
make it ineffective :question:
potentially better decision making
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
is this achieveable :question:
how to make this effective?
forward deployed pilots
so remain in the theatre of war
ability to conduct missions where it would otherwise be too risky
potential reduction of civilian casualties
decreased risks to manned pilots
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
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:
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
we want it but don't want others to have it
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
doesn't this happen (at least to some extent) :question:
Virtue and military ethics
self and organisation
you and the enemy
don't consider ethics and politics as binary
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
dual obligations of winners
win and win well
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
as he say his duty to achieve strategic goals
what Petreaus did
1 more item...
inc public dissent
valuable in certain circumstances
4 more items...
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
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
but physical courage remains a noble thing
does risk free warfare transfer risk to a separate domain?