The Ethics of Remote Assassination by Autonomous Military Drones - Free Essay Example

In recent years, there have been impressive technological advancements of military drones; however, as the number of and usage of drones increases, and the levels of autonomy elevate, so too do public concerns regarding the ethics and morality of unmanned drone strikes. Many of the most commonly articulated ethical concerns stem from confusion and uncertainty regarding the word autonomy itself. Defined simply: autonomy is the ability for a machine to perform a task by itself. Obviously, some machines are more autonomous than others, and many machines only rely on human control for specific tasks. For example, when the trigger of a machine gun trigger is pulled, the rapid firing that results is an automated process, but when the magazine is empty, a human must take control and reload the weapon. Thus, while a machine gun requires a high level of human control to function, it is still considered an autonomous weapon. With this in mind, and especially when considering the use of powerful military weapons such as drones, it is clear why it is essential to define the specific tasks that are being automated, rather than just labeling the entire device as autonomous. Currently, there are no fully autonomous military drones that is, drones that perform all of their tasks and choices without human control   but the level of drone autonomy is rapidly increasing. Many current critics fear that drones are capable of, or will be soon, instantaneously computing moral judgements and deciding which targets to kill by themselves; however, as of now, that level of autonomy still exists only as science fiction.   For example, many believe that soldiers must be at serious personal risk in order to possess the moral authority to kill in battle. Other critics highlight a genuine concern that civilian casualties occur, making the use of these weapons immoral for that reason. There is a concern that the detachment associated with a lack of home team casualties will make the military leadership too comfortable using this weaponry with little public complaint. There are other critics that understand the current status of drones, yet still believe the use of them to be unethical for various reasons. Closer examination reveals however that these concerns are misplaced.   In fact, by several important measures, highly autonomous drones provide not only military and strategic advantages, but are also tools that allow for the waging of war at higher standards of ethics and morality than is possible without them.  Ã‚   Autonomous drones have been proven to greatly assist in reducing the number of civilian deaths in armed conflict. The key to safe, efficient, and ethical use of autonomous drones will be the careful and deliberate set of instructions that military engineers and high ranking military officials provide them. By programming high levels of autonomy in advance, drones will be able to operate efficiently and without emotional interference, while still adhering to human set guidelines. Historically, nations have achieved military dominance through various means: superior tactics and strategies; better access to resources; highly-skilled combatants. Technological innovations, too, have provided an important military advantage: from the Roman Ballista, to the English longbow, all the way to the modern assault rifle. New weapons have often brought with them contemporary ethical concerns. Most notably, atomic weaponry especially as man developed horrific weapons within the last century that have not been used in over sixty years because of their capacity to kill huge numbers of civilians. In the case of drones, they too are just a weapon. Just like it is not unethical to use an assault rifle in combat, it is not unethical to use drones; however, it is unethical to abuse the power of drones and violate the Laws of Armed Conflict. While atomic bombs are clearly weapons too, their use is blatantly unethical because of the unavoidable, catastrophically large number casualt ies that will result from their utilization. Some critics are concerned about the moral implications of using weapons that put civilians   but not the weapons operators   at risk. According to the just-war principles, it is better to risk the lives of ones own combatants than the lives of enemy noncombatants, The Christian Century magazine opined. But this moral calculus is completely tossed aside in the case of drone warfare, since drone operators dont risk their lives at all.   With drone operators doing their work in the safety of an office environment close to their homes and families, they are delivering lethal force from behind computer screens to battlefields thousands of miles away.   While it can be seen that this seems somehow unfair, it is not morally wrong.   Aleksandar Fatic argues that the failure to endure hardship or take risks disqualifies the drone operator from the historic military tradition that gives soldiers the moral authority to kill.  Ã‚   The soldier who is literally getting his hands dirt y laying anti-personnel mines that subsequently kill children and farmers is not acting in a morally superior fashion whatsoever.   Nor is the pilot who perhaps has some remote risk of being shot down while he drops thousands of pounds of explosives on cities 20,000 feet below, as occurred with alarming civilian casualties during the second world war firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo, a sympathetic claimant to the moral high ground.   The Syrian pilot dropping his payload of chemical weapons on civilians is rightly viewed as committing a war crime.   More to the point, it is the commander of the forces that sends this pilot on this mission that is viewed as the war criminal. With documented evidence of civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes, concerns have been voiced that these are therefore immoral weapons.   By this measure, there are no moral lethal weapons.  Ã‚   Perhaps that is true, but within the context of military conflict, it is the relative propensity to inflict civilian casualties and death that is relevant.   David Rohde, a New York Times reporter held captive by the Taliban for seven months before escaping in June 2009: I saw firsthand in North and South Waziristan [in the Pakistani tribal region] that the drone strikes do have a major impact. They generally are accurate. The strikes that went on killed foreign militants or Afghan or Pakistani Taliban around us. There were some civilians killed, but generally the Taliban would greatly exaggerate the number of civilians killed. They inhibited their operations. Taliban leaders were very nervous about being tracked by drones. So they are effective. . . . They do eliminate some top leaders As compared to other lethal weapons, the rate of civilian casualties from drone attacks is low. The New America Foundation stated in mid-2011 that from 2004 to 2011, 80% of the 2,551 people killed in the strikes were militants. The Foundation stated that 95% of those killed in 2010 were militants and that, as of 2012, 15% of the total people killed by drone strikes were either known civilians or unknown  Ã‚  Ã‚   During the entire Vietnam war, it is estimated that while 444,000 North Vietnamese soldiers were killed, over 625,000 civilians perished in that conflict.   Civilian casualties during the wars in Iraq outnumbered combatants by a wide margin as well.   The organization Iraq Body Count estimates total casualties including combatants at 280,000, of which between 182,000 and 204,000 are civilians, suggesting that two thirds of all deaths were civilian.   If the high end of estimates are accurate, drone attacks have been responsible for 1 civilian death for every 4 combat ants.   Perhaps the most compelling of the arguments that drones are morally problematic weapons is the concern that they make the death and destruction too remote from the public eye, thereby desensitizing the average citizen from the horrors of war.   Argues Mary L. Dudziak, a professor of law, history and political science at the University of Southern California: Drones are a technological step that further isolates the American people from military action, undermining political checks on contemporary warfare, And the isolation of the people, historians of war have argued, helps enable ongoing, endless war. This is a public policy argument larger than the issue of drones.  Ã‚   Governments have hidden the actions of their military and the resultant death and misery long before drones were invented.   Many years into the military involvement of US soldiers in Vietnam, the truth was kept from the American public, and deliberate management of public perceptions through misinformation and deception remains a reasonable concern.   A new weapon is not inherently morally objectionable if it is associated with this deception.   The political and military leadership that deliberately deceives the public however is.  Ã‚  Ã‚   With the recorded footage created by each drone strike, much like the dashboard cameras and body cameras that civilian police forces are beginning to adopt, accountability is arguable increased with this technology. Legal frameworks form a useful perspective with which to explore the ethical implications of autonomous drones.  Ã‚   Existing legal standards understand that in the fog of war, humans will do terrible things and mistakes will be made.   The human emotions of fear and anger will naturally play important roles in the conduct of soldiers.  Ã‚   So too will human limitations adversely impact the ability collect, absorb and process information quickly and accurately in the heat of battle.  Ã‚   When judging the actions of military personnel during wartime,   some allowances are necessarily and reasonably made for this unfortunate reality.   It is the effort to minimize civilian deaths now referred to euphemistically as collateral damage that forms the basis of much of the evolving legal and moral framework within which we view the waging of war.   An examination of these new autonomous drones within this framework is important, as their capacity to remove the human element that is the basis of the wiggle room with which we make allowances for the unfortunate inevitable loss of non-combatant lives makes them a morally superior weapon because of the fact that we can hold them to a higher standard than weapons more burdened with human frailties.

Love and Chance in Marivaux - Literature Essay Samples

Marivaux’s play The Game of Love and Chance is a short work composed in the Italian style of commedia dell’arte, using stock characters and humor to explore conventional themes. Specifically, The Game of Love and Chance is tailored to address the relationships between love, fortune, and factors such as reason and social class. Marivaux utilizes the social statuses and behaviors of the characters to suggest that love and chance, as seen through the prism of social class, are both powerful causal forces that overpower reason. It becomes evident early on in the play that love and fortune are both potent causal forces. The effects of these combined forces are most clearly seen in the psychological states of the characters under their influence. For instance, the emotional stability of the upper-class young woman, Silvia, is referred to both indirectly and as a form of self-commentary. Silvia has fallen in love against her will with Dorante, a nobleman disguised as a simple valet. Other characters are first to notice the changes that take place in Silvia. The servant Lisette states that Silvia â€Å"grow[s] passionate† at the mere mention of Dorante, and says that she â€Å"[does] not understand [Silvia’s] vicious mood† because she has â€Å"never seen [Silvia] in such a state† (339). Silvia’s brother, Mario, states that Silvia appears â€Å"strange,† â€Å"touchy,† and in â€Å"quite a frenzy,† and her father, Orgon, agrees that Silvia is â€Å"so distraught [he does] not recognize [her]† (345-346). Silvia eventually likewise criticizes herself in a brief soliloquy, proclaiming: â€Å"How wretched I feel! I am more than distressed. I feel burdened and disturbed† (347). In the context of the play, Silvia’s transformations, which take place after chance has suddenly inspired her to fall in love with an unexpected character, imply that the forces of chance and love are capable o f causing extensive psychological modification. The verification of these changes by both the character being described and all of the characters assumed to be most familiar with her strengthen the argument that the forces are quite powerful indeed. It is also implied that the causal forces of love and chance are assumed to be so powerful because they are the laws of nature. For example, Silvia’s future relationship with Dorante is discussed in the opening of the play, before the couple has even met. Lisette states that for Silvia to reject or have contempt for the arranged marriage â€Å"is unnatural† (317). Although the couple has not yet met, in a sense this statement foreshadows how natural and easy it will be for Silvia to eventually embrace the changes that love causes. Similarly, fortune is implicated as a natural law. When Lisette and Arlequin, both lower-class servants, fall in love while disguised as upper-class individuals, Lisette comments on Arlequin by s tating that â€Å"So much humility is not natural† (358). Since humility is a trait associated with lower-class members of society, and Arlequin at the time is thought to be an upper-class person, it is clear that social roles are thought of as naturally components of each class. Because fortune defines social class, it is implied that chance is a natural force acting upon individuals. In the play, both love and chance are portrayed as being more powerful than human reason. Characters continuously attempt to utilize reason to manage their personal lives, yet it appears that when one is under the influence of the deterministic forces of love and chance, reason is overpowered. Silvia, for instance, often reflects upon herself in a manner that indicates that she is engaged in an internal battle between the love that fortune has brought her to and her powers of reasoning. In all cases, Silvia seems to find herself acting in opposition to reason. For example, in one particular co nversation with Dorante, Silvia exclaims: â€Å"Whether you go, whether you stay, whether you come back, all these movements must not affect me nor do they, in factThese are my resolutions! My reason allows me no others and I should not even let myself tell you about them† (341). However, despite her resolve, Silvia finds herself charmed by Dorante, and admittedly finds herself â€Å"rush[ing] into frenzies† whenever she is around him (340). Later, after Dorante reveals his identity and Silvia is still disguised as a maid, Silvia recognizes that similar forces are present within Dorante, stating: â€Å"He thinks that if he marries me he will betray his birth and his wealthThese are not light obstacles†¦ I can almost feel the conflict in him. I want a battle between Love and Reason† (356). Mario responds by accurately predicting the victor of this battle, exclaiming: â€Å"And death to Reason, I suppose!† (356). When Dorante proceeds to ask the disg uised Silvia for her love despite their apparent differences in social class and the rules of convention, it becomes clear that love indeed overcomes what reason may dictate for an individual. In fact, it is often the case that surrendering one’s reason and embracing the love that fortune has brought typically produces positive results. For instance, when Mario realizes that both Silvia and Dorante have decided to meet in disguise, he tells Orgon: â€Å"Well, Sir, since matters have taken this course I should leave them be† (323). By the end of the play, it is clear that this decision allows Dorante and Silvia to interact, forming the basis of their relationship. Yielding one’s reason to the forces of love and chance allows one to align him/herself with what these forces have decreed. For example, after both Silvia and Dorante have revealed their true identities, Silvia tells Dorante, â€Å"we both used the same masquerade to become better acquainted. That sai d, there is no more to say. You love me and I will never be able to doubt it† (365). It is clear that Silvia has finally discontinued her attempts to reason about Dorante, and acknowledged that the existence of his love is all that should be taken into consideration. Therefore, it is implied that happiness is often reached when one lets go of his/her reason and lines him/herself up with what natural forces have caused. The relationship between Arlequin and Lisette often humorously encourages this approach. When Lisette questions Arlequin about whether he should be reasonable rather about their relationship, Arlequin declares: â€Å"Reasonable? Oh, alas, I have lost my reason. Your lovely eyes are the rascals that took it away† (335). Thus, it again appears that reason is overtaken by the natural force of love. For Marivaux, this idea may have served as a commentary on the Enlightenment rationalism that was popular around the time that the play was first produced. Altho ugh love and chance have many similar characteristics, there is an interesting relationship between the two individual forces: they are related by social structure. Chance decides what social class a particular person belongs to, since people born into a certain class become another member of it. This is referred to quite often by many of the characters in the play. For instance, when Lisette reminds Arlequin that they â€Å"are not the masters of [their own] fate,† Arlequin agrees by stating: â€Å"That lies in the hands of our mothers and fathers† (337). Since the social status of the parents was similarly due to the fortune of their own parents, it is implied that all social roles are formulated by chance. More indirectly, social status is related to fortune because the fortune of certain lower-class individuals appears to be decreed in part by the upper-class members whom they work for. In reference to what should become of Arlequin, Orgon says: â€Å"His master w ill decide his fate† (347). Therefore, chance defines one’s social status. Social status, in turn, influences how a particular individual speaks and behaves. Each class has an expected and unique version of language and acceptable interactions, so examining these traits in a certain individual can often reveal his/her social status. For example, Silvia states that even when she is disguised as a lower-class maid, â€Å"there will be something in [her] manner that demands respect† (324). Dorante clearly recognizes that Silvia’s language and behavior do not match her lower-class status. Quickly upon meeting, Dorante states that even though he normally has â€Å"no great liking for [chambermaids’] company or attitudes,† he feels differently around Silvia, having â€Å"a constant desire to take off [his] hat† and â€Å"to treat [her] with such respect† (Marivaux 326.) This is a reflection on both Silvia and Dorante, since neither o f their behaviors match their lower-class disguises. Silvia notices a similar disjunction between the mannerisms of Dorante and Arlequin with relation to their positions, and she states: â€Å"How strange fate is. Neither of those two men is in his proper place† (Marivaux 330.) This statement also helps elucidate the relationship between fortune and behavior: chance identifies an individual’s social status, and social status defines how an individual speaks and acts. Finally, a person’s language and behavior typically fosters specific relationships, somewhat regardless of what social class people may be in. The playful bantering between Lisette and Arlequin, juxtaposed to the more serious and more eloquent flirtation between Silvia and Dorante, is a good example of how interactions among members of the same class reflect their common mannerisms. Also, the characters often remark about each others behavior relative to their social class when discussing their lov e. For instance, after Arlequin and Lisette uncover their true identities, Arlequin tells Lisette: â€Å"You may have changed names but you have not changed your face and you know quite well that we promised to love each other in spite of all spelling mistakes† (Marivaux 360.) Thus, it is implied that the couple loves each other because of each person’s behavior and language, regardless of what social class they are apparently assigned to. Dorante makes a similar claim near the end of the play, telling Silvia: â€Å"There is no degree, no birth, no fortune that does not wither away before your love† (Marivaux 364.) In some ways, there appears to be a motif of love transcending social class. However, since relationships are based upon mannerisms that are defined by social status, indirectly social class is still responsible for arrangement of the personal affairs. Furthermore, at times it appears that love is a somewhat more powerful force than chance. For examp le, early in the play Silvia tells Dorante: â€Å"Fortune has used you ill,† since at the time he had the meager position of a valet, and Dorante responds: â€Å"Love has used me worse. I would rather be able to ask you for your love than to have all the riches on earth† (Marivaux 328.) Again, it appears that love transcends social statuses, although the love most likely would not have formed if Dorante hadn’t already learned to interact with people of a similar manner. However, Marivaux may be implying that under the right circumstances, love can be a more powerful influence upon an individual than chance. In either case, it is clear that love is related to chance through social structure. Chance defines an individual’s mannerisms based on their social class, and in turn those mannerisms align similar individuals and foster love. Thus, in Marivaux’s The Game of Love and Chance, love and chance serve as deterministic natural forces. Both forces ar e powerful and capable of causing major changes within an individual, and both overpower reason. The two forces are related to each other through social structure.