Modern Ethics in 77 Arguments by Peter Catapano

Author:Peter Catapano
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Liveright
Published: 2017-11-12T05:00:00+00:00

OCTOBER 3, 2016

The Moral Hazard of Drones

—John Kaag and Sarah Kreps

AS THE DEBATE ON THE MORALITY OF THE UNITED STATES’ USE of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs, also known as drones) has intensified in recent weeks, several news and opinion articles have appeared in the media. Two, in particular, both published this month, reflect the current ethical divide on the issue. A feature article in Esquire by Tom Junod censured the “Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama” for the administration’s policy of targeted killings of suspected militants; another, “The Moral Case for Drones,” a news analysis by the Times’ Scott Shane, gathered opinions from experts that implicitly commended the administration for replacing Dresden-style strategic bombing with highly precise attacks that minimize collateral damage.

Amid this discussion, we suggest that an allegory might be helpful to illustrate some of the many moral perils of drone use that have been overlooked. It shows that our attempts to avoid obvious ethical pitfalls of actions like firebombing may leave us vulnerable to other, more subtle, moral dangers.

While drones have become the weapons of our age, the moral dilemma that drone warfare presents is not new. In fact, it is very, very old:

Once upon a time, in a quiet corner of the Middle East, there lived a shepherd named Gyges. Despite the hardships in his life, Gyges was relatively satisfied with his meager existence. Then, one day, he found a ring buried in a nearby cave.

This was no ordinary ring; it rendered its wearer invisible. With this new power, Gyges became increasingly dissatisfied with his simple life. Before long, he seduced the queen of the land and began to plot the overthrow of her husband. One evening, Gyges placed the ring on his finger, sneaked into the royal palace, and murdered the king.

In his Republic, Plato recounts this tale but does not tell us the details of the murder. Still, we can rest assured that, like any violent death, it was not a pleasant affair. However, the story ends well, at least for Gyges. He marries the queen and assumes the position of king.

This story, which is as old as Western ethics itself, is meant to elicit a particular moral response from us: disgust. So why do we find Plato’s story so appalling?

Maybe it’s the way that the story replaces moral justification with practical efficiency: Gyges’s being able to commit murder without getting caught, without any real difficulty, does not mean he is justified in doing so. (Expediency is not necessarily a virtue.)

Maybe it’s the way that Gyges’s ring obscures his moral culpability: it’s difficult to blame a person you can’t see and even harder to bring them to justice.

Maybe it’s that Gyges is successful in his plot: a wicked act not only goes unpunished but is rewarded.

Maybe it’s the nagging sense that any kingdom based on such deception could not be a just one: What else might happen in such a kingdom under the cover of darkness?

Our disgust with Gyges could be traced to any one of these concerns, or to all of them.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.