5 ms·

This may get me some downvotes, but I imagine that the same ethical issue exists with any weapon. Guns and bullets exist to kill, and in both human society and

This may get me some downvotes, but I imagine that the same ethical issue exists with any weapon. Guns and bullets exist to kill, and in both human society and the animal kingdom, elimination of a few people can increase the overall population and livelihood of the entire group. I think what you're arguing is about effectiveness of those weapons, not their use. However, I truly believe that the right direction for life on this planet is the elimination of death of people or animals. Sure, you could take a bullet to every jaywalker or tax cheat, but I think we've learned more productive ways to handle those situations, and I hope/pray that we'll learn new ways in how to handle terrorists and other violent criminals that could lead to their redemption. But in the meantime, we may have to accept a lesser of two evils while searching for a good, and I think more intelligent and selective killing is better than widespread killing. My big worry isn't so much the killing part (not because it's foreigners, but because they are hopefully only attacking murderers), but the erasure of civil rights via intelligent surveillance employed in the name of security. That to me seems far more insidious and dangerous (which of course is easy to say when it's not my life or my family's that's being ended, but I'm speaking collectively rather than individually there).

pluma 9y ago
You're making a good point about handling criminals. The US still has the death penalty. The death penalty exists to "protect the public" but most civilised countries have agreed that it's inhumane compared to other alternatives. Its harm outweighs the good it does. We have also banned other inhumane practices like solitary confinement. Where you're wrong is that drone strikes are a necessary evil. There is no way to measure the efficacy of drone strikes. Sure, you can determine whether the drone strike destroyed the target and with Google's help you might even get a machine to tell you a confidence level of whether the target was correctly identified, but good luck proving that that drone strike even saved as much as a single life. What we can measure, however, is the civilian cost. Except of course it's nearly zero because those in charge of the drone strikes also get to define who can be considered a civilian. It's easy to have zero dead civilians when you're the one who gets to decide whether those unidentified adult males caught in the blast radius couldn't also maybe have been terrorists all along.
- natecavanaugh 9y ago
  Thank you for your response and I apologize for the delay in responding. I think you're using an ineffective metric to argue against something you're against ethically. Here's what I mean: saying it's benefit is immeasurable is arguing for better metrics. If it could be demonstrated that it did effectively end more terrorists lives and saved civilians, would you be celebrating it? I think you'd still want us as a society to invest in a more humane way of handling it. > What we can measure, however, is the civilian cost. Except of course it's nearly zero because those in charge of the drone strikes also get to define who can be considered a civilian. Which, in my opinion makes it immeasurable, currently. It still sounds like your arguing for more data, not a better approach. I think obviously drone strikes have a benefit to those who use them, otherwise they wouldnt keep using them out of some philosophical attachment to unmanned aircraft. I do agree we need more and better metrics and data on both their efficacy and civilian cost, but for me, even better would be a solution that doesn't even need the killing. But if you're asking for the military to abandon something in favor of a more ethical response, you should use a better argument and show how it will lead to less death overall. Otherwise, they'll dance around the semantics of what's being argued.

pluma 9y ago

You're making a good point about handling criminals. The US still has the death penalty. The death penalty exists to "protect the public" but most civilised countries have agreed that it's inhumane compared to other alternatives. Its harm outweighs the good it does. We have also banned other inhumane practices like solitary confinement. Where you're wrong is that drone strikes are a necessary evil. There is no way to measure the efficacy of drone strikes. Sure, you can determine whether the drone strike destroyed the target and with Google's help you might even get a machine to tell you a confidence level of whether the target was correctly identified, but good luck proving that that drone strike even saved as much as a single life. What we can measure, however, is the civilian cost. Except of course it's nearly zero because those in charge of the drone strikes also get to define who can be considered a civilian. It's easy to have zero dead civilians when you're the one who gets to decide whether those unidentified adult males caught in the blast radius couldn't also maybe have been terrorists all along.

natecavanaugh 9y ago
Thank you for your response and I apologize for the delay in responding. I think you're using an ineffective metric to argue against something you're against ethically. Here's what I mean: saying it's benefit is immeasurable is arguing for better metrics. If it could be demonstrated that it did effectively end more terrorists lives and saved civilians, would you be celebrating it? I think you'd still want us as a society to invest in a more humane way of handling it. > What we can measure, however, is the civilian cost. Except of course it's nearly zero because those in charge of the drone strikes also get to define who can be considered a civilian. Which, in my opinion makes it immeasurable, currently. It still sounds like your arguing for more data, not a better approach. I think obviously drone strikes have a benefit to those who use them, otherwise they wouldnt keep using them out of some philosophical attachment to unmanned aircraft. I do agree we need more and better metrics and data on both their efficacy and civilian cost, but for me, even better would be a solution that doesn't even need the killing. But if you're asking for the military to abandon something in favor of a more ethical response, you should use a better argument and show how it will lead to less death overall. Otherwise, they'll dance around the semantics of what's being argued.