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.
Preliminary Hazard List/Analysis for Boeing Scan Eagle
Operations