Journal of Military Ethics 19 (3):220-240 (2020)

Authors
Nathan Gabriel Wood
University of Ghent
Abstract
Warfare is becoming increasingly automated, from automatic missile defense systems to micro-UAVs (WASPs) that can maneuver through urban environments with ease, and each advance brings with it ethical questions in need of resolving. Proponents of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) provide varied arguments in their favor; robots are capable of better identifying combatants and civilians, thus reducing "collateral damage"; robots need not protect themselves and so can incur more risks to protect innocents or gather more information before using deadly force; robots can assess situations more quickly and do so without emotion, reducing the likelihood of fatal mistakes due to human error; and sending robots to war protects our own soldiers from harm. However, these arguments only point in favor of autonomous weapons systems, failing to demonstrate why such systems need be made *lethal*. In this paper I argue that if one grants all of the proponents' points in favor of LAWS, then, contrary to what might be expected, this leads to the conclusion that it would be both immoral and illegal to deploy *lethal* autonomous weapons, because the many features that speak in favor of them also undermine the need for them to be programmed to take lives. In particular, I argue that such systems, if lethal, would violate the moral and legal principle of necessity, which forbids the use of weapons that impose superfluous injury or unnecessary harm. I conclude by highlighting that the argument is not against autonomous weapons per se, but only against *lethal* autonomous weapons.
Keywords Autonomous Weapon Systems  Military Ethics  Laws of Armed Combat  International Humanitarian Law
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/15027570.2020.1849966
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Weighing Lives.John Broome - 2004 - Oxford University Press.
Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
Null. Null - 2016 - Philosophy Study 6 (9).

View all 30 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Just War and Robots’ Killings.Thomas W. Simpson & Vincent C. Müller - 2016 - Philosophical Quarterly 66 (263):302-22.
What's So Bad About Killer Robots?Alex Leveringhaus - 2018 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 35 (2):341-358.
Should We Campaign Against Sex Robots?John Danaher, Brian D. Earp & Anders Sandberg - 2017 - In John Danaher & Neil McArthur (eds.), Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
No Such Thing as Killer Robots.Michael Robillard - 2018 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 35 (4):705-717.
Making Sense of Spousal Revenge Filicide.Glenn Carruthers - forthcoming - Aggression and Violent Behavior.
The Strategic Robot Problem: Lethal Autonomous Weapons in War.Heather M. Roff - 2014 - Journal of Military Ethics 13 (3):211-227.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-12-15

Total views
34 ( #321,346 of 2,454,957 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #38,543 of 2,454,957 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes