Ethics and Morality

Ethical Use of UAS Systems for War

            Many people think that the use of unmanned systems for the taking of human life in warfare is unethical because it does two things;

1.      Removes all risk of injury or death from the operator

2.      Further turns war into a process, removing the humanity from the situation, and making it easier to engage in warfare

While this is all true it ignores a key point; war was never fair and many weapons that are now commonplace and considered “fair” were at one time considered unethical. A few hundred years ago, the bow and arrow could be considered unethical. It meets both of the above criteria, removing the operator from almost all risk of injury or death and making it easier to wage war. Many people consider sniper rifles to be in the same category because for the most part, they yet again meet all of the above criteria.

One could make the argument that just about any weapon that gave its user an advantage was considered unethical at the time, until everybody acquired the technology and the playing field was again level.

In this sense, UAS systems are no different. What makes UAS unique is the integration of AI. For the first time in human history it is possible to give the decision to kill to the machine. This is the key issue at hand. Should non-humans be given the task of conducting war against humans?

The answer is no. Efficiency should never be favored over reflection, careful judgment, and sometimes even mercy just for the sake of mercy. All humans strive to make even the most inhumane acts, war, the death penalty, imprisonment, as humane as possible while still accomplishing the goal at hand. This means attempting to treat others as you yourself would want to be treated to the best of your ability. Artificial intelligence is not capable of this, at least not yet.

We know that in war we have to kill, but we also know that we can do it as humanely as possible. This is the reason that many weapons that cause undue suffering, such as chemical weapons, are banned by certain treaties and agreements. Most combatants would rather take life as painlessly as possible or not at all if they can avoid it.

There are however, people who do seek to cause undue suffering. This is basically the entire focal point of any terrorist group. To cause terror, which means undue suffering. So is it OK to fight fire with fire in this case? I do not believe so. What makes the good guys “good”, is their desire to do what is right, even in extremely difficult situations. War should not be turned into a “set-it-and-forget-it” process with the use of artificial intelligence.

As usual, the ethics of any situation are never black and white. However, as usual, we could definitely make a better attempt and not crossing the line and behaving like our enemies.