Are Drone Strikes less Moral?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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 tend to think the more detachment then the less empathy required for the murder, which tends to increase the immorality---and frequency---of it. Thus:

Beheadings > Manned aircraft > Drones

I'd think a direct hit from a Tomahawk more moral than beheading, using the victim's suffering as a gauge.

[Mudhammam]

I tend to think the more detachment then the less empathy required for the murder, which tends to increase the immorality---and frequency---of it. Thus:

Beheadings > Manned aircraft > Drones

I'd think a direct hit from a Tomahawk more moral than beheading, using the victim's suffering as a gauge.

Oftentimes limbs, even heads, are blown off a person, and they don't die, at least right away (well unless it's their head of course). And there's nobody on the other end, doing the killing, who experiences actually taking that life and watching the victim suffer; there's no accountability. The person killed by a Tomahawk might not ever even be known.

[abaris]

People under bombardement can still run for cover.

Really, like that gran in Pakistan who never knew what hit her, when some drone operator mistook decided to take her for a combatant while she was actually caring for her veggie garden? Or those reporters in Bagdad, in the video wikileaks made public?

It's not as if these attacks were announced with sirens as they were in WWII. They come out of the blue. And all those people being left behind are potential future enemies. Just trying to walk in their shoes for a second should make that abundantly clear. I probably would do my utmost to get back at those having killed one of my loved ones.

And sorry, I can't see much of a difference between chopping off heads and killing from a safe distance. Both are cowardly acts. The only difference I see is that one group is showered with distinctions and considered the spearhead of civilization and the other barbaric.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd think a direct hit from a Tomahawk more moral than beheading, using the victim's suffering as a gauge.

Oftentimes limbs, even heads, are blown off a person, and they don't die, at least right away (well unless it's their head of course). And there's nobody on the other end, doing the killing, who experiences actually taking that life and watching the victim suffer; there's no accountability. The person killed by a Tomahawk might not ever even be known.

My own opinion is that they cruel nature of a deliberate beheading imparts a depravity not seen in most bombstrikes, for instance.

Both suck, I suppose, but I know very few people who wish to ponder death even as they know it's occurring. This adds a dimension of psychological torture in most cases.

[Mudhammam]

Oftentimes limbs, even heads, are blown off a person, and they don't die, at least right away (well unless it's their head of course). And there's nobody on the other end, doing the killing, who experiences actually taking that life and watching the victim suffer; there's no accountability. The person killed by a Tomahawk might not ever even be known.

My own opinion is that they cruel nature of a deliberate beheading imparts a depravity not seen in most bombstrikes, for instance.

Both suck, I suppose, but I know very few people who wish to ponder death even as they know it's occurring. This adds a dimension of psychological torture in most cases.

Don't you think hearing a drone buzz above you everyday and knowing that your neighbors' family was recently killed by one might cause some duress?