The Pros And Cons Of Artificial Intelligence

Humans have discussed and argued about the morality and ethical connotations of war, and the means in which we conduct our wars, for thousands of years. Every major civilization in our world has an evolved tradition on what is and is not acceptable on the battlefields in which we meet. These traditions and views continue to change based on a reflection on similar concerns.

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.

The main cost of warfare is human life with few people hope to see their neighbors dying on the front lines of a grueling and brutal conflict. The death of a drone is much more acceptable

Most of us know that ethics are the norms that determine between right and wrong. We learn these norms from the day we born and we use them on a daily basis. Ethical norms start from families, kindergarden, school, and work. They are different in religions, in cultures, in societies, and in different countries, but in their roots, they are the same. The laws copied from ethics are natural laws. During war we kill and torture people which is considered to be unethical but, there are some issues that we accept things which we don’t have to. War has always been and will continue to be a necessary action executed by human beings. There are many reasons for wars such as territorial issues, religion factors, and ethnic factors. And when the disagreements between two parties cannot be solved in a peaceful way, the war is the last option to be conducted. For this reason, the Geneva Convention sets international standards and laws which are a protection for humanity in other circumstances. “Professionals are guided by their ethics: the set of principles by which they practice, in the right way, on behalf of those they serve - demonstrating their characters” (General Raymond T. Odierno 2014). The importance of military ethics in 21st century is very valuable. In order to find out the importance, moral within ethics, ethical challenges and ethical categories with examples will be discussed.

The growth of UAVs has been almost as remarkable as the growth of aviation. During just the Iraq war, the amount of UAVs used in operation has been grown from a handful in 2003 to approximately in 5300 in the Department of Defense alone (Singer 35). This number does not include the use of drones by other governmental agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Defense. Furthermore, much of the technology afforded to manned aircraft has been extended to UAVs such as stealth capabilities and the adaptation of air-to-ground weapons. Note that

Warfare is a devastating quality of the human condition. Nowhere in nature do other species hunt and kill their fellow members for political reasons and at a mass scale. Attempts to systemize and standardize the rules and regulations of warfare are difficult if not impossible to appease every key player involve. The purpose of this essay is to examine the rules of engagement of warfare as a guiding principle that is subjective and not uniform throughout the system of war itself. This inconsistency will be discussed by presenting the Vietnam War through six different levels of perception located in the chain of command. This exercise will prove that each segment of the war fighting contingency has its own subjective reasons to follow rules of engagement.

The military commonly misuses drones, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, “Every few days it seems a new report comes out about the death of another group of “faceless” people, whether it’s suspected terrorist leaders or civilians. With little transparency from the governments launching drone strikes, that leaves speculation and debate to the watchdog organizations,” As stated by an

Professor Maja Zehfuss (2011: PP543-556) critique of targeting with Precision Munitions raises several issues that question the confidence placed in the technologies to reduce casualties of military action. These technologies of targeting with Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) have the potentials of helping to conduct “ethical wars” by enforcing non-combatants immunity. Zehfuss refers to several scholars who

The production of modern technologies has created the possibility of “risk free war making.” Michael Walzer, a prominent moral philosopher, believes that the possibility of a risk-free war is a positive thing. A soldier has a right to fight from a distance so long as their weapons can aim accurately at their military targets. Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, is concerned that a risk-free war can create serious moral problems. In his book Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond, Michael Ignatieff presents the audience with the potential moral implications of a riskless war, or rather a “virtual war.” In what follows, I will argue that Ignatieff’s idea of a virtual war is outdated in the sense that, in modern warfare, the morality of a virtual war is circumstantial. Although his argument is outdated, it is still relevant, and I will defend his premise that the ability to fight at a distance does create a moral problem in modern warfare.

Morality and moral decision making add yet another dimension to the already complex nature of warfare. A key tenet of warfare and combat is one human taking another’s life. Bloodshed is the main factor which differentiates warfare from diplomacy. However, warfare is never black and white. Modern day insurgent warfare requires incredibly difficult labeling and differentiating between combatants and civilians, that far surpasses the complexity of traditional warfare, making moral decisions all the more difficult. However even when the enemy wears a uniform and the battleground is not in a neighborhood, killing another human being is hardly ever a morally straightforward task. The graphic novel, Watchmen, written by Alan Moore, explores

War is considered the last resort when solving a conflict especially for the implications of human beings at risk. When debating about war the “ethical character of war” is a determining factor. The ethical character of war refers to the sense that it is human beings who fight it. For example thinking about the prioritization of soldiers defense against civilian damages, whatever position one takes it is clear that the relevant criterion is thinking about the importance of one set of human beings in conflict against another set. Therefore, the decision of war becomes more difficult, but if the human factor is remove from the debate then war becomes a dehumanize activity. An example of dehumanization of conflict is the term “bug splat” to refer to the killing of a terrorist by drone strike. When war does not involves humans we can only assume that getting involve in conflict will be easier for leaders because human loss will not be a factor to

Theodore Roosevelt profoundly stated, “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him.” This is the main idea of preemptive warfare. Gray stated that pre-emptive warfare means to strike first in the face of an attack that is either already underway (2007). Simply stated, he exclaimed that it is “the option of shooting on suspicion” (p. 6). If a country is aware that another nation or group is going to attack them, the theory of preemptive war states that it is not only strategic, but also ethically moral, to attack the enemy before they attack you. Because the free will of humankind disrupts our world, we must ask this question: Is preemptive warfare morally justified? This topic will be analyzed by looking that four different ethical systems. First, we will be analyzing Utilitarianism and the Christian worldview, which suppose that preemptive warfare is morally justified. Second, we will examine Cultural Relativism and Kantian ethics, which are two systems that don’t fully support or negate that preemptive warfare is morally justified.

The Information Technology industry is the fastest growing field in the nation, and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 2012-2022 projected 18% of the increase. The heist demand is set for Information Security Analysist, which expected to grow to 37%. (see table below)

Are autonomous robots the warfare altering weapon of this generation? In order to answer this question there must be a clear definition of autonomous robots. An autonomous robot is a robot that can perform any action without any human assistance and once weaponized they become autonomous robotic weapons who act on their own. Knowing the current standing of autonomous robots, the limitations on them, and how easily they can cause an autonomous robot arms race one would see how a preemptive ban can protect the world. Although some would argue for the help these robots could provide, there would always be a threat of malfunction. Therefore banning all applications autonomous robots could protect the world from unnecessary deaths or increased future conflict.

Is war an invention or is it a biological need? We engaged in this intriguing argument with several view. Some scholars tried to proof that warfare is a biological necessity but others assert that war is something that is created. A number of studies define warfare as an act of violence, a struggle, or a test of ability between groups, for a particular end. However, the general conception remains that war is inevitable and is universal. Generalization about this particular phenomenon may be problematic. Our way of life, and activities we engage in daily are affected by our culture. As culture varies over time and space, it would be challenging to prove war is universal. So is warfare inevitable, or even universal? Mead (1940:20) contends that war is an invention. With this conception, this paper attempts to argue that warfare materializes as a means to manage in some circumstance but not all.