The morals of war are an often debated and contested
subject; especially as certain human rights are given up, while others are
retained. This is easily seen by the
fact that enemies give up the right to life in terms of fighting on a
battlefield. However, torture is strictly
prohibited by the Geneva Convention. This
article addresses the morality of using unmanned aircraft to kill enemies, and
concludes that it is justified. The
author gives three main reasons for supporting drone attacks.
First of all, he says
that they are cheaper than the alternative.
Although I agree that this could be an argument due to the potential for
that money to be wisely spent elsewhere, I do not think we should make moral
issues based on money. We should not say
that “this is moral because it makes solving other, unrelated problems easier”. Second, he says that it is moral because fewer
humans die. From a utilitarian perspective
this argument is perfectly valid, and I agree that a drone attack is preferable.
If the military has already determined that the target would be killed if a
chance encounter occurred between combatants, and there is no chance of capture
without heavy losses, a drone attack may be the best option. The author’s third and final justification concerns
the fact that drone strikes are more impersonal and are better met by public
opinion. I feel that this should instead
be an argument against, as it inhibits our ability to fully understand what is occurring. It is hard to understand the horrible
situation of those people dying, weather necessary or not, through a screen.
Finally, the author concedes that though he feels drone attacks are moral, he
may have to reconsider the situation when they are used against us. In conclusion, I think that drone attacks
could be justified as another weapon during a war, however not as an assassin against
potential enemies.
Aside from
this article, I found some of the comments very interesting, though on somewhat
different topics. LordByng said “You
see, this is exactly what Hitler was talking about. There was an ethnic
group that was a threat (imaginary of course). And it was a matter of
whose four-year-old would get killed. He simply and logically wanted that
threat removed, and wanted Jewish four-year-olds to die, and not German ones.” While this comparison is a little extreme and
misplaced, it does raise some interesting questions into the morality of self-defense
and preemptive strikes. Since this is a
slightly different topic I won’t go into it, but just wanted to show it as an
area of further discussion. Also, to
enhance understanding: http://xkcd.com/652/
No comments:
Post a Comment