(February 19, 2015 at 5:12 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: In Psychology class, I remember learning about an experiment on the extent to which people could be instructed to push a button that would administer a shock to a person while they watched behind a two way mirror.

Yes, the well known Milgram experiment. It showed that there are a great many potential SS-men out there in every country of the world. If authority says to push the button, you don't ask twice. It's not your responsibility anymore.

As far as drone strikes or manned bomb attacks go, there's no moral or immoral about both. They're both amoral and what's more, they're fundamentally stupid in the way they're carried out. And that's the bigger problem and the bigger question to ask, since with a great many innocent bystanders killed, they're a first class recruitment campaign for extremists. Wether the missile, killing auntie or granny, was fired by a drone or an aircraft is a secondary concern.

Yes! That's kinda my point. The moral question is whether or not its right to kill. If killing is necessary, then there are indeed more and less ethical means to do it. But I don't think drones are any less moral than a manned strike. But as it was pointed out, they may create more separation between us and the button making it easier to do, even when it may not be necessary.

(February 19, 2015 at 6:22 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: But as it was pointed out, they may create more separation between us and the button making it easier to do, even when it may not be necessary.

You think the button in an aircraft is more personal? I don't think so. Even the Hiroshima pilots didn't lose any sleep. Drone or aircraft, both operators don't see the the carnage left behind.

(February 19, 2015 at 6:06 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Both good points. I think that the initial question of "Should we employ deadly force" to be considered all the more carefully. Everything I said presupposes that the conclusion of using deadly force was ethical in the first place. From then on, the means doesn't really change the ends.

OK, for the purpose of discussion, I'll presuppose that deadly force is reasonable and ethical.

In one well-defined context, that being the difference between instantly killing an enemy combatant with say, a rifle, ordnance from a piloted aircraft, ordnance from a remotely piloted aircraft, or from an autonomous drone, the difference for me is one of "I think we ought not conduct warfare in a way that makes it easier to conduct warfare".

I wouldn't say that all uses of deadly force are equal and that the end justifies the means.

There's also the question of collateral casualties - and my gut tells me it's going to be a lot easier to inflict same when the human is far removed from the direct consequences of the act (much in the same way that it's probably easier to get someone to use a drone to kill someone, than it is to get them to stab someone in the neck). Deadly force may be lawful, ethical, and reasonable at the time - but (to use an absurd example) that does not mean that it would be OK to throw some poor sap in a wood chipper.

I would guess there's more chance of unintended killings due to malfunction with a drone than other methods? Just a guess. Maybe they're pretty foolproof.

The Milgram experiment showed that ordinary people would generally follow the rules of engagement given by an authority. This moves the moral choice from the individual to the creator(s) of the ROEs. Such has always been the case, since at least the time when officers were able to remove themselves from personal risk while ordering death by others. Drones don't change that.

Others might point to the Zimbardo-Stanford Prison experiments where ordinary college students, placed in an environment where inhumane behavior was allowed without sanction, would behave inhumanely. Applying this to drone strikes assumes the command chain would allow the drone operator (newspeak there, executioner might be more apt) freedom to expand the rules of engagement beyond their original scope.

I, rather, would point to an alternate reference which has been repeatedly shown more authoritative and accurate than any psychological or sociological study in the last 50 years. That would be Star Trek, the Original Series. In the Episode Mirror-mirror an unfortunate transporter accident caused Captain Kirk to be transferred to a bizarro parallel universe where good and evil were swapped. At the same time, his evil twin, the Kirk from that place was swapped into the ecumenical, diverse, kum-ba-yah Enterprise in our space. When in his own ship, the 'bad' Kirk has access to a button controlling an alien technology which allows him to remotely eliminate (no blood, this was prime time in the '60s) his competition. The script authors proved that our Kirk, the 'good' Kirk was in fact good by giving him opportunity to use that magic button and having him decline.
Applying all this to drones; the simplicity of pushing a button to violently eliminate the 'bad' guy on the other side of the world is too tempting to give to anyone, particularly politicians. There is a constellation of conditions which grease the slides to misuse: separation from events on the ground, lack of personal risk, self delusion, rationalization and indoctrinated hatred make declining to push the 'bad' Kirk's button less and less likely.

(February 19, 2015 at 4:50 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: This is a topic which I am undecided on. A lot of people seem to think that the use of drones to attack stuff is inherently less moral than the use of manned aircraft. I'm not quite sure. There is something creepy in a dystopian novel sort of way about them but I can't really come up with a logical reason why they are less moral than using a manned aircraft to do the exact same thing. I'd like to get some people with better established or better informed opinions on it to weigh in one way or another.

I think the overall concern is the difficulty in checking if this power is being abused.

(February 19, 2015 at 6:34 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 6:22 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: But as it was pointed out, they may create more separation between us and the button making it easier to do, even when it may not be necessary.

You think the button in an aircraft is more personal? I don't think so. Even the Hiroshima pilots didn't lose any sleep. Drone or aircraft, both operators don't see the the carnage left behind.

It isn't necessarily. There does seem to be a psychological difference between dropping an LGB from 60,000 feet or launching a rocket at a radar blip versus dropping cluster munitions on people from 250 feet or opening up on a crowd with an autocannon. At least there seems to be for me.

I for one am appalled at how easily my government wages warfare, and making it easier and/or cheaper only seems to make it more likely they (and the US public) will find it more palatable.

"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." - Gen. Robert E. Lee

(February 19, 2015 at 5:21 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: . . .

If that's the case why do people make such a big deal about the use of drones ?

. . .

Those on the receiving end probably find their effectiveness inconvenient.

Um... are you really asking if something designed to kill people is "moral?"