Are Drone Strikes less Moral?

[emilynghiem]

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

<smiles>
To be fair, if defense is used properly, it can serve as effective deterrent and PREVENT people from doing any such action that would require USING it to kill anyone. That's the hype anyway. I mean, hope.

[The Reality Salesman01]

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.

That was my point. The button separates us from feeling more closely involved. The remoteness of UAVs is more detached than a pilot flying overhead. We're in agreement. It's bad.

---

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.

Good point. I guess I was sayng the means wouldn't change the end while assuming the collateral damage and the degree of suffering is the same in all means.

[Minimalist]

And a pilot firing a missile from 30 miles away has no more connection to the people he is killing that a drone operator sitting 3000 miles away.

Besides...it you want to search for morality I suggest looking somewhere else than war.

[abaris]

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.

There's a pretty recent book (can't find it right now, so I have to stay vague) about the consequences war has on the ones actually waging it on the frontlines. The author investigated tons of letters and interviews from recent wars. And by recent I mean as far back as WWII.

When it came to pilots, he made a pretty gruesome discovery, he described in three stages. At first, the pilots fought with their feelings of guilt, especially when they hit civilians. In the second stage they grew apathetic and in the third stage they actually grew fond of the experience. Like going for a hunt, such as we might enjoy killing another boss in a video game. And this goes for all the pilots on all sides in all the wars, he investigated.

I once watched a documentary about WWII where they interviewed an American bomber pilot and asked about his feelings. He had none. Only at one instance, according to his own account, he came back to humanity. After flying a bomb raid on a big city, some bombs were stuck and they had to get rid of them before landing. They dropped them and hit some remote farm house. He, just having become a father, suddenly thought about the possibility of having hit children with these last bombs. So the city and the bomb carpets were anonymous and didn't invoke guilt or reflection. But the remote house suddenly screamed victim to him.

You made another point about collaterals. Let's drop the euphemisms, shall we? Collaterals is what the government and the military wants us to think about innocent victims being cought in the blaze. They are innocent victims and they are at the very core of the problem which goes as far back as bomber Harris. Bombing civilians never achieved anything other than making the survivors rally bahind their leaders, thereby making it harder to win an actual conflict. It's creating more enemies, creating more determined enemies, who want to avenge their killed loved ones. Ultimately it's fundamentally stupid to think you could win a war from above.

[The Valkyrie]

I don't think drone strikes are any less moral than airstrikes by manned aircraft.

I question the use of both occasionally but accept that some strikes are necessary.

With both the final decision is made by a human.

I am concerned for the day that people allow intelligent drones to make the decisions for themselves. Will that really happen? I don't know. And I certainly hope not.

[Sterben]

It stills boils the question "Is it right to kill?". If there is clear "unmutilated" evidence that a standing army is a direct threat to a other country. It does not matter if there are 300 or 9000 miles away. In fairness though to both sides, the loss of innocence people who had nothing to do with the original incident is wrong though. Unavoidable though in most cases, drones are a great way to reduce causalities on both sides of the conflict. But, if you ask me the way it should be done is the old-fashion way, were they get to directly beat shit out each-other in a field. But, we can dream right?

[LastPoet]

---

There's a pretty recent book (can't find it right now, so I have to stay vague) about the consequences war has on the ones actually waging it on the frontlines. The author investigated tons of letters and interviews from recent wars. And by recent I mean as far back as WWII.

When it came to pilots, he made a pretty gruesome discovery, he described in three stages. At first, the pilots fought with their feelings of guilt, especially when they hit civilians. In the second stage they grew apathetic and in the third stage they actually grew fond of the experience. Like going for a hunt, such as we might enjoy killing another boss in a video game. And this goes for all the pilots on all sides in all the wars, he investigated.

I once watched a documentary about WWII where they interviewed an American bomber pilot and asked about his feelings. He had none. Only at one instance, according to his own account, he came back to humanity. After flying a bomb raid on a big city, some bombs were stuck and they had to get rid of them before landing. They dropped them and hit some remote farm house. He, just having become a father, suddenly thought about the possibility of having hit children with these last bombs. So the city and the bomb carpets were anonymous and didn't invoke guilt or reflection. But the remote house suddenly screamed victim to him.

You made another point about collaterals. Let's drop the euphemisms, shall we? Collaterals is what the government and the military wants us to think about innocent victims being cought in the blaze. They are innocent victims and they are at the very core of the problem which goes as far back as bomber Harris. Bombing civilians never achieved anything other than making the survivors rally bahind their leaders, thereby making it harder to win an actual conflict. It's creating more enemies, creating more determined enemies, who want to avenge their killed loved ones. Ultimately it's fundamentally stupid to think you could win a war from above.

---

There is some detachement from the victims, just as to an artillery gunman. Yet, to decapitate a defenseless person or set him on fire in a cage still seems more cruel to me. People under bombardement can still run for cover.

[Pizza]

It depends on if harm is being minimized or in other words, if it is the less awful thing to do. This is a shit world we live in after all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Autonomous drones are indeed forbidden by the Geneva Convention. I'm on my phone and cannot easily link to the relevant passage, but will later if anyone asks.

Regarding the morality of drones, I consider them equally moral -- or immoral -- insofar as it is delivering conventional munitions. I believe that the morality of conventional weaponry is tied to usage and intent, much moreso than delivery system.

[Mudhammam]

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 there is then the less empathy factors in the decision to murder, which tends to increase the frequency---and immorality---of it. Thus:

Beheadings > Manned aircraft > Drones