The Ethics Of The Drone Warfare

In Bradley Strawser’s “Moral Predators,” Strawser argues that “we are obligated to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) weapon systems if it can be shown that their use does not significantly reduce a warfighter’s operational capability.” By their very nature UAVs evoke many ethical questions most of which are addressed by Strawser, who stresses “there is no downside to UAVs.” I would argue there are certainly some downsides to this technology. The aim of this paper is to provide legitimate moral objections to using drones in warfare.

America must hold an ethical standard when using counterterrorism tactics such as drones in order to maintain support from Americans and nations with active jihadist organizations. This task can be difficult because various groups around the world have different opinions of how terrorism should be approached. For example, individuals who have Kantian ethics ideologies are against the assassination of terrorist because they believe that the killing another rational person is morality incorrect (Algar-Faria, 2015). In contrast, utilitarian ethic condones violence acts if the outcome outweighs the evilness if the violence does not occur. These two ethical positions are often used when discussing the ethicality of counterterrorism

In some countries people, do not have the freedom to choose their own path. Many people live in places with so much conflict and destruction that they are force to follow the orders of a political lieder and force to make decision that are not in accordance to what they believe, but they do it because they are loyalty to their country, family and friends Pauline M. Kaurin provide a scenario of a soldiers killing civilian people that they confused with a suicide bomber, then she asked, “When is killing murder and when is it a legitimate act of war? Whom can one legitimately kill in war?” (Kaurin in page 41). She argues that during combat distinction from the enemy and civilian should be relevant to preserve the essence of true morality. In the contrast to Achilles the essence of true morality is irrelevant when he claims that no Trojan should keep their life, he swore death to all Trojan. (book XXI). During a time, war, is important to accept the fact of the situation in the eyes a devastation believing that one fate must be accepted in other to continue living or accepting the consequence and the faith of their own

The changing face of conflict has brought about an evolution on how we conduct and even think about warfare. Gross (2010) states that assassination was once prohibited under the statutes of international law but has increasingly become common in the modern day battlefield. A dilemma is presented when we question is there any ethical basis of using assassination as a tool of modern warfare. There is increasing realization that one cannot engage in war using the conventional means. Terrorism and insurgence being the new methods employed in modern warfare mean fighting using conventional rules puts one at a major disadvantage. The killing of Osama Bin Laden according to White (2012) can be termed as an assassination; it was executed by a special

This is the reality of war. War is not clean cut or binary. It is dirty and and slaughter. It is cyclical and multifaceted. The carnage is a cost of war. Ethics should not be lost or sacrificed as war continues. This is in regards to the countless lives lost due to war. How many lives will be lost in order to achieve

The combat drones also rapidly compound the well-founded fears of the terrible abuse that this practice is susceptible to. Thus, the legality of the practice is what has been questioned as many times as the United States Government has practices these killings. Targeted killing inherently poses frightening risks of error and abuse. These fears are at a heightened level due to American mistakes at Guantanamo Bay and the interrogation techniques on detainees who were denied access of the full protections of the criminal justice system. Some critics condemn targeted killing as extrajudicial execution while others have accepted this practice as just another aspect (legitimate) of armed conflict against determined, organized, armed, and international terrorist groups.

The movie Platoon tells the story of a platoon of soldiers during their time serving in the Vietnam War. The soldiers find themselves in a variety of ethically challenging situations, and many make decisions with massive ethical ramifications. The situations vary, from searching a village for enemy activity to deciding whether to save a fellow soldier, and the soldiers are forced to choose between varieties of less than ideal options. The movie’s ethical spectrum ranges from individuals concerned only with accomplishing their mission at all costs to those who express concern for the lives of all people they interact with. The two ends of this spectrum are represented in the movie by Sergeant Barnes as the soldier who values only completing his mission contrasted with Sergeant Elias who attempts to preserve the life and humanity of the Vietnamese people he encounters when possible (Kopelson, 1986). I believe that the decisions exemplified by Elias represent a better way of conducting warfare, while those of Barnes represent a descent into understanding only the immediate objective at the expense of winning the overall war. The following key ethical decision points from the movie demonstrate the superiority of the decisions made by Elias

In Part II, Glover discusses the tragic effects of war on the average person’s morality. This is done through morally distancing oneself from what events that are considered horrific or tragic. As soldiers and armies slowly distance themselves from close range combat with long range strikes such as missiles and drones, there is more acceptance of what is normally considered impermissible.

There are different elements clarify why terrorism is ethically wrong, regardless of the possibility that different types of murdering are every so often passable. Notwithstanding, terrorism slaughtering considers whether the utilization of different sorts of fear for political as opposed to military use makes terrorism altogether off-base. A few good qualifications that may be critical to the ethical quality and reasonable portrayal of terrorism are incorporated.

When targets are disposed of through means of remote-controlled drones, the U.S becomes disconnected with the war itself. Drone Pilot Colonel D. Scott Brenton himself admitted that in conducting drone strikes with just a screen and controls, he feels no connection or emotion for the people he kills ("Should the United"). This should not be so. Through this, the U.S is able to go to any measure and continue any conflict as it pleases with no remorse for the cost of human lives. This further enables the U.S to disregard moral principles, at the cost of as many human lives as the U.S pleases. War should have restrictions, and every life should be bargained and reasoned with. With this disconnect though, the U.S uses as much force as it pleases in conflicts that threaten their interest. This disconnect through drone strikes also allows the U.S not to notice or care for how it is spreading to the general civilian life in the affected regions. According to witnesses and researchers, drone strikes are harming local populations “beyond death and physical injury” ("Should the United"). Many witness that the people in affected regions live in constant fear of drone strikes, and are afraid to travel or participate in any sort of meeting. Many incidents of local deaths and injuries due to these drone strikes plague the population, and many people consider the drones to be

“With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete…”, (Tzu 35). Drones are the new breed of the “perfect” predators controlled by both civilian masses and military personally. They hunt, they track, and they never lose a target. As far as the world powers are concerned, Drones are a humanitarian weapon, they ensure no human cost to the perpetrator, and are precise in effecting only enemy. After several years of losing loved ones and the young of this nation, we now have a solution, but is it ethically right? Kantian ethics are one’s intentions as

In this modern era, the value of life is what makes sacrifice meaningful. In Agamben’s Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life he discusses the concept of homo sacer, which is “ a body that can be killed but not sacrificed.” He also talks about the state of exception and how “the sovereign exception (as zone of in distinction between nature and right) is the presupposition of the juridical reference in the form of its suspension.” (Agamben 21) This concept can be related to the issues involving drones and drone warfare. In Gregoire Chamayou’s A Theory of the Drones, he focuses on how drones are transforming the laws of wars, and radicalizing certain aspects in warfare, that is bringing in a new era with immoral dimensions. This could alter the political arena for the countries that already use them. (13) The danger therefore, does not lie with the drone operators, as they no longer face the danger of being exposed to the enemy, this has also immunized them to the possible trauma of reflecting upon their own violence because they are viewing everything though a screen a thousand miles away. The real danger lies with society as a whole with the politics of waging war removed from the purview of citizens, this affects societies continued ability to critique or reject violence.

I learned a lot of information concerning the Rules of War in historic and contemporary combat. As I led Chapter 3’s discussion, I could not help but to write down important comments and assertions made by my peers concerning the review. The chapter asserts how morals affect the Rules of War, discusses the left and right limits of following orders in war, and justifies the extent to which the Rules of War can be modified or disregarded. Most importantly, it explains the Two Rules of War, which serve as the foundation of this chapter. Before I can explain the first three main points of this paper, I need to explain the Two Rules of War. In general, it is reasonable to come to the consensus that soldiers in conflict have the equal right to kill.

However the main argument on the other hand is built on the legality of drone attacks. Critiques have questioned the compatibility of the US drone policy in fighting terrorism pointing out the issue concerning just war theories (Jus in bello) and jus ad bellum (conduct in war). For instance, critics of this policy question the legality and justification of these attacks in states which United States is not directly at war with such as Pakistan, Yemen (Ohlin, 2012, O’Connell, 2011 Sarah E Kreps,

There are three main factors to be judged in order to determine whether having fire-combating drones is ethical or unethical [1]: