Graduate studies at Western
Ethics and Information Technology 14 (4):241-254 (2012)
|Abstract||Current precursors in the development of lethal, autonomous systems (LAS) point to the use of biometric devices for assessing, identifying, and verifying targets. The inclusion of biometric devices entails the use of a probabilistic matching program that requires the deliberate targeting of noncombatants as a statistically necessary function of the system. While the tactical employment of the LAS may be justified on the grounds that the deliberate killing of a smaller number of noncombatants is better than the accidental killing of a larger number, it may nonetheless contravene a reemerging conception of right intention. Originally framed by Augustine of Hippo, this lesser-known formulation has served as the foundation for chivalric code, canon law, jus in bello criteria, and the law of armed conflict. Thus it serves as a viable measure to determine whether the use of lethal autonomy would accord with these other laws and principles. Specifically, examinations of the LAS through the lenses of collateral damage, the principle of double effect, and the principle of proportionality, reveal the need for more attention to be paid to the moral issues now, so that the promise of this emerging technology—that it will perform better than human beings—might actually come to pass|
|Keywords||Biometrics Lethal autonomy Right intention Tolerance for error|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Randolph Clarke (2008). Autonomous Reasons for Intending. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (2):191 – 212.
Lubomira Radoilska (forthcoming). Autonomy and Depression. In K. W. M. Fulford, Martin Davis, George Graham, John Sadler, Giovanni Stanghellini & Tim Thornton (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry. Oxford University Press.
Ryan Tonkens (2012). The Case Against Robotic Warfare: A Response to Arkin. Journal of Military Ethics 11 (2):149-168.
George R. Lucas (2011). Industrial Challenges of Military Robotics. Journal of Military Ethics 10 (4):274-295.
Wayne A. Davis (1984). A Causal Theory of Intending. American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1):43-54.
Ric Caric Northrup (1994). Identity, Social Relations, and Time. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 1 (1):26-33.
Orlin Vakarelov (2011). The Cognitive Agent: Overcoming Informational Limits. Adaptive Behavior 19 (2):83-100.
Govert de Hartogh (2007). Intending for Autonomous Reasons. In Bruno Verbeek (ed.), Reasons and Intentions. Ashgate Pub. Ltd..
Sarah Buss (2012). Autonomous Action: Self-Determination in the Passive Mode. Ethics 122 (4):647-691.
Deborah Richards & Jacobson Michael, Evaluating the Models and Behaviour of 3D Intelligent Virtual Animals in a Predator-Prey Relationship. AAMAS (Autonomous Agents and Multiagents Systems) 2012: 79-86, Http://Http://Aamas2012.Webs.Upv.Es/Index.Php?Option=Com_content&View=Article&Id=27&Itemid=27. AAMAS (Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems).
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-10-07
Total downloads1 ( #292,381 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?