Prop- Letha autonomous weapons, By Duaa Hassan DUDA Debate 2023 Motion

.pdf

School

West Texas A&M University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3335

Subject

Medicine

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by SuperHumanRain8692

“This House would ban Lethal Autonomous Weapons” Proposition Definitions: Lethal autonomous weapons: programmed machines often used in the military that detect, identify, and shoot human targets without any human intervention. (This does not include any guns of any kinds, since those do require human control.) This house: We define this house as governments around the world, since they have the power and resources to do so. Burdens: Proposition must justify the ban of lethal autonomous weapons Opposition must provide reasoning as to why lethal autonomous weapons should not be banned. SUBSTANTIVES Sub 1: Lethal autonomous weapons are not reliable. (layer 1- no human control) After the introduction of gunpowder and nuclear weapons, several observers have claimed that the creation of lethal autonomous weapon systems for military use would signal a third revolution in warfare. Although unmanned drones and other semi-autonomous weapons are often used, they still require human supervision, control, and decision-making to ensure, at least in theory, that targets are morally and legally acceptable. lethal autonomous weapon systems are defined as: “any system capable of targeting and initiating the use of lethal force without direct human supervision and direct human involvement in lethal decision making.”. to rephrase this, they stand for the complete automation of lethal harm Once created, these weapons might be mass-produced quickly and cheaply. Furthermore, when the machine's learning algorithms access more data, lethality will only grow with time. Without the ability to make decisions, autonomous weapons run the risk of accidentally targeting civilians or malfunctioning in other ways without any sense of accountability or justification. Countless scenarios could play out, how do we know it won't target innocent soldiers on the battlefield for example? Hundreds of people would lose their loved ones. Or Won't the ‘battlefield’ in general only turn into these autonomous machines? And Wouldn’t developing countries have a disadvantage with military equipment? From an ethical point of view, machines devoid of feeling and compassion are incompatible with the principle of humanity, consolidated in international humanitarian law. It requires individuals to have respect for human dignity and human life, even in situations of war. Would a weapon system, programmed to kill, feel empathy for an enemy surrendering to it, begging for their life?

(layer 2- technological issues) Lethal autonomous weapons also offer a great risk technologically. For example, in Latin American countries, the use of facial recognition technology has disproportionately threatened black people. Many are arrested for crimes they did not commit. It is often based on inaccurate images identifying them as the perpetrator of offenses. Ultimately, lethal autonomous weapons systems making use of this technology or even a different technology to identify targets could kill innocent individuals.as technology is never 100% reliable. In addition, autonomous weapons, like all technology, are vulnerable to hacking and could turn against their developers in the event of cyberattacks. Resulting in a major tragedy. In this substantive I offered many different arguments to show in many different ways, how lethal autonomous weapons have a negative effect on our society, we generalize all of these downsides into one phrase. They are unreliable. Autonomous weapons could risk public health. Like all weapons, these weapons might spread like wildfire on underground markets, making them easily available to organizations breaking international law. And we have seen this play out before with weapons that are not authorized for public use but there have been tragic situations when they were exposed to the public. Next, The medical community had a key role in establishing the weapons bans already in place, including, most recently, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In addition, the medical community has a unique understanding of the risks of automated decision making. Medicine has given us insight into the value of human decision makers who take full account of ambiguity, anomalies, data weaknesses, and context to avoid biases that harm patient care. If the medical community stresses that humans cannot be replaced by an algorithm in the treatment of patients and prevention of harm, how can it be justifiable to replace human judgment in decisions to kill people, as autonomous weapons are designed to do?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version