Spring 2016 (30.1) Feature

Robots and Respect: Assessing the Case Against Autonomous Weapon Systems

The prospect of “killer robots” may sound like science fiction. However, the attention given to the operations of remotely piloted drones in recent years has also spotlighted the amount of research that is being conducted on weaponized robots that can select and attack targets without the direct oversight of a human operator. Where the armed services of the major industrialized countries were once quick to distance themselves from the use of autonomous weapons, there is increasing speculation within military and policy circles—and within the U.S. military in particular—that the future of armed conflict is likely to include extensive deployment of autonomous weapon systems (AWS). A critical 2012 report on AWS by Human Rights Watch and the 2013 launch of an NGO-led campaign for a treaty prohibiting their development and use has intensified the ongoing ethical debate about them.

My aim in this article is twofold. First, I will argue that the ethical case for allowing autonomous targeting, at least in specific restricted domains, is stronger than critics have typically acknowledged. Second, I will attempt to defend the intuition that, even if this is so, there is something ethically problematic about such targeting. Given the extent of my ambitions, the dialectic that follows is somewhat complicated and for this reason it will be useful to briefly sketch an outline of the argument here.

My argument proceeds in three parts. In the first section I introduce a working definition of “autonomous” weapons and describe the military dynamics driving the development of these systems. In the second section I survey and evaluate the existing literature on the ethics of AWS. The bulk of this discussion is framed as an account of two “rounds” of debate between an influential advocate for AWS, Ron Arkin, and his critics. In the third and final section I turn to a deeper investigation of the philosophical foundations of the just war doctrine of jus in bello in order to develop a new account of the origins and force of the intuition that the use of killer robots would necessarily be morally problematic. I conclude that although the theoretical foundations of the idea that AWS are weapons that are evil in themselves are weaker than critics have sometimes maintained, they are nonetheless strong enough to support the demand for a prohibition of the development and deployment of such weapons.

To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.

More in this issue

Spring 2016 (30.1) Response

On the Redundancy of Jus ad Vim: A Response to Daniel Brunstetter and Megan Braun

The set of principles proposed by Brunstetter and Braun to comprise jus ad vim is redundant, and the project stems from a largely implausible understanding ...

Spring 2016 (30.1) Essay

Crisis, Values, and the Purpose of Science: Hans Morgenthau in Europe

Morgenthau, like many other émigré scholars, was a “traveler between all worlds,” meaning that Morgenthau in America cannot be understood without having knowledge about Morgenthau ...

Spring 2016 (30.1) Essay

Hans Morgenthau and The Purpose of American Politics

When read next to his Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, published in 1946, The Purpose of American Politics reveals a significant shift in Morgenthau’s intellectual ...