David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (1):62–77 (2007)
The United States Army’s Future Combat Systems Project, which aims to manufacture a “robot army” to be ready for deployment by 2012, is only the latest and most dramatic example of military interest in the use of artificially intelligent systems in modern warfare. This paper considers the ethics of a decision to send artificially intelligent robots into war, by asking who we should hold responsible when an autonomous weapon system is involved in an atrocity of the sort that would normally be described as a war crime. A number of possible loci of responsibility for robot war crimes are canvassed; the persons who designed or programmed the system, the commanding officer who ordered its use, the machine itself. I argue that in fact none of these are ultimately satisfactory. Yet it is a necessary condition for fighting a just war, under the principle of jus in bellum, that someone can be justly held responsible for deaths that occur in the course of the war. As this condition cannot be met in relation to deaths caused by an autonomous weapon system it would therefore be unethical to deploy such systems in warfare.
|Keywords||ethics robotics military robotics artificial intelligence|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas Nagel (1972). War and Massacre. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (2):123-144.
Robert Sparrow (2004). The Turing Triage Test. Ethics and Information Technology 6 (4):203-213.
Arthur Kuflik (1999). Computers in Control: Rational Transfer of Authority or Irresponsible Abdication of Autonomy? [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 1 (3):173-184.
Citations of this work BETA
Bradley J. Strawser (2010). Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles. Journal of Military Ethics 9 (4):342-368.
Mariarosaria Taddeo (2012). Information Warfare: A Philosophical Perspective. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Technology 25 (1):105-120.
Robert Sparrow (2009). Building a Better Warbot: Ethical Issues in the Design of Unmanned Systems for Military Applications. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (2):169-187.
John P. Sullins (2010). Robowarfare: Can Robots Be More Ethical Than Humans on the Battlefield? [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 12 (3):263-275.
Noel Sharkey (2010). Saying 'No!' to Lethal Autonomous Targeting. Journal of Military Ethics 9 (4):369-383.
Similar books and articles
Ludovic Marin & Olivier Oullier (2001). When Robots Fail: The Complex Processes of Learning and Development. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1067-1068.
Tatsuya Nomura, Takugo Tasaki, Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Hiroshi Ishiguro & Norihiro Hagita (2006). Questionnaire-Based Social Research on Opinions of Japanese Visitors for Communication Robots at an Exhibition. AI and Society 21 (1-2):167-183.
Robert Sparrow & Linda Sparrow (2006). In the Hands of Machines? The Future of Aged Care. Minds and Machines 16 (2):141-161.
Mark Coeckelbergh (2010). Moral Appearances: Emotions, Robots, and Human Morality. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 12 (3):235-241.
Mark Coeckelbergh (2011). From Killer Machines to Doctrines and Swarms, or Why Ethics of Military Robotics Is Not (Necessarily) About Robots. Philosophy and Technology 24 (3):269-278.
Greg Michaelson & Ruth Aylett (2011). Special Issue on Social Impact of AI: Killer Robots or Friendly Fridges. [REVIEW] AI and Society 26 (4):317-318.
Judith Halberstam (2011). The Queer Art of Failure. Duke University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads108 ( #21,603 of 1,724,748 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #64,701 of 1,724,748 )
How can I increase my downloads?