(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.
