Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (1):62–77 (2007)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
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) |
DOI | 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Computers in Control: Rational Transfer of Authority or Irresponsible Abdication of Autonomy? [REVIEW]Arthur Kuflik - 1999 - Ethics and Information Technology 1 (3):173-184.
Citations of this work BETA
Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics.Vincent C. Müller - 2020 - In Edward Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Palo Alto, Cal.: CSLI, Stanford University. pp. 1-70.
Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability.Mark Coeckelbergh - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4):2051-2068.
Mind the Gap: Responsible Robotics and the Problem of Responsibility.David J. Gunkel - 2020 - Ethics and Information Technology 22 (4):307-320.
Moral Zombies: Why Algorithms Are Not Moral Agents.Carissa Véliz - forthcoming - AI and Society:1-11.
Robots, Law and the Retribution Gap.John Danaher - 2016 - Ethics and Information Technology 18 (4):299–309.
View all 152 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
When Robots Fail: The Complex Processes of Learning and Development.Ludovic Marin & Olivier Oullier - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1067-1068.
Special Issue on Social Impact of AI: Killer Robots or Friendly Fridges. [REVIEW]Greg Michaelson & Ruth Aylett - 2011 - AI and Society 26 (4):317-318.
From Killer Machines to Doctrines and Swarms, or Why Ethics of Military Robotics Is Not (Necessarily) About Robots.Mark Coeckelbergh - 2011 - Philosophy and Technology 24 (3):269-278.
Moral Appearances: Emotions, Robots, and Human Morality. [REVIEW]Mark Coeckelbergh - 2010 - Ethics and Information Technology 12 (3):235-241.
In the Hands of Machines? The Future of Aged Care.Robert Sparrow & Linda Sparrow - 2006 - Minds and Machines 16 (2):141-161.
Questionnaire-Based Social Research on Opinions of Japanese Visitors for Communication Robots at an Exhibition.Tatsuya Nomura, Takugo Tasaki, Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Hiroshi Ishiguro & Norihiro Hagita - 2007 - AI and Society 21 (1-2):167-183.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
450 ( #21,429 of 2,517,824 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
51 ( #16,190 of 2,517,824 )
2009-01-28
Total views
450 ( #21,429 of 2,517,824 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
51 ( #16,190 of 2,517,824 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads