From Star Wars’s C-3PO and R2-D2, to Star Trek’s Data, to Disney’s Wall-E and Baymax, American culture has always entertained the idea of friendly robots. In the real world, however, robots can play a more villainous role.
Today, the military frequently uses robotic drones as a main instrument of defense and attack. Philosopher Patrick Lin, in an article for The Atlantic, provides a nuanced briefing about the ethics of using drones for military purposes such as espionage and information gathering.
Lin mentions the surprising lack of discussion regarding this specific implementation of drones and suggests that
“most controversial uses are traced back to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in targeted strikes against suspected terrorists.”
On one hand, Lin claims that drones can perform military duties without the human capacity for extreme cruelties, such as rape or other crimes, that sadly occur during war. Unlike humans, Lin convincingly argues that drones “can be objective, unblinking observers to ensure ethical conduct in wartime.”
On the home front, drones can also function as a method of public surveillance to create a “protester panopticon,” holding police forces in the country accountable for their actions on duty. In dangerous enemy territory, this technology can replace real people who risk their lives to serve their country in many cases. Drones meant to protect the country that cause no unnecessary harm or even prevent that outcome seem like a perfect solution, right?
Now let’s complicate the issue.
Drones can absolutely reduce the potential for war crimes, but these instruments also inherently cause the same adverse effects, mainly psychological warfare. Aside from simply collecting Intel, the United States also designs predator drones specifically meant for “targeted killings” against terrorists. These clandestine, devastating weapons that could strike at any moment understandably stir widespread terror in many countries.
Researcher Vijay Luhan explores the psychological impacts of drone strikes on Pakistan civilians in an article published last year. Luhan claims,
“this method of tackling terrorism is a mistake, as drone strikes have become a recruiting tool for extremist networks and are not purely hypothetical.”
Lin also acknowledges the repercussions of using drones for diplomatic negotiations in his briefing: “In war, this could backfire against us, as our enemies mark us as dishonorable and cowardly for not willing to engage them man to man.”
Rather than ensuring national security, drones actually stoke greater resentment toward the United States, perpetuating the causes of conflicts between nations. Robots might not take over the world completely as science fiction would lead us to believe, but they do pose real moral questions. The United States needs to consider the counterproductive nature of drones in future international affairs in order to avoid these overlooked consequences.
KPControversy 