4 ms·

Love how the perspective of this argument is that instead of drone pilots succumbing to a real sense that what they are doing is unjustifiable, this guy is an "

Love how the perspective of this argument is that instead of drone pilots succumbing to a real sense that what they are doing is unjustifiable, this guy is an "ethicist" that is attempting to say that we need to find a way to train morality out of people so they can push remote kill buttons and feel fine.

ambulancechaser 7y ago
that reminds me of a suggestion of where to keep nuclear codes: > My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, "George, I'm sorry but tens of millions must die." He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It's reality brought home. > When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button." > — Roger Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Fisher_(academic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Fisher_(academic)
- tmb 7y ago
  Direct link to article https://books.google.com/books?id=ygoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA16&ots=oVkrzABnMr&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ygoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA16&ots=...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
matz1 7y ago
Or just hire people who has different moral values. Is it so difficult to find? I personally don't have the problem pushing the kill button.
- kbenson 7y ago
  I think what we are seeing is people with different moral values that thought they wouldn't have a problem having a problem, so I'm not sure your suggestion would help (and you may want to consider that before volunteering yourself for something that might affect your mental health). I can't help but view this as similar to someone offering to work as a nurse "because they don't get sick".
  - matz1 7y ago
    Yes, there are certainly people like that. But I'm referring to people with different moral value who really are wouldn't have problem. Its not that rare isn't it? Its different, because everyone can get sick. The more accurate analogy is someone offering to work as nurse because they are not afraid of blood.
    - kbenson 7y ago
      I think you'll have to prove to me that people like that exist, at least in a state that is acceptable enough that they can be employed by the military and not excluded because of those same problems. I suspect people like that cause far more problems than they solve. How many war atrocities do you need to make the entire idea cost more than its worth? And before someone jumps in that these are already atrocities, there's a huge difference between a mistake killing innocents or the idea of acceptable losses and slaughtering every man, woman and child in a village, because we've seen that before.
      - matz1 7y ago
        while I'm fairly certain I am that people, I'm not sure how to prove it to you. The war atrocities is either the issue of the leader making wrong decision or the soldier not following order. Assuming the leader made the correct decision of killing and the solider who execute that order is a solider who doesn't have moral qualm about the killing then what is the issue ?
        7y ago
nesadi 7y ago
It's a matter of perspective. For people who believe a strong military is important to protect their own country and in a geopolitical world where military capability is everything that matters, what else is there? If a conflict breaks out, nobody's going to stop just because some military operators could be traumatized. At most you get to choose which military personnel are affected, but overall there's no "good" outcome for anybody involved on a psychological/emotional level.
- e12e 7y ago
  There's a difference between having problems committing war crimes by employing tactical weapons on civilians and being willing to attack a military force?
  - nesadi 7y ago
    Is every drone operator killing civilians? Is the sniper's syndrome limited to the operators who've killed civilians? Recent headlines about the US killing 30 farmers make it easy to confuse the context. I'm sure the operator(s) involved with that operation are traumatized. But that's not really the discussion here. As per the article > The rates of drone pilot burn out were in fact higher than that of traditional pilots. > Given that the target often posed no direct threat to the sniper, there was a moral dissonance about taking the life of someone who is no direct threat. This has obvious parallels to drone pilots. > Couple this with the familiarity that the drone pilot might have developed through long-term surveillance, and the target becomes an informationally rich human, rather than simply a blip on a screen. > Posing a threat to someone is often seen as a moral requirement in order for a solider to use lethal force against a target. However, the drone pilot is acting remotely, and they lose this sense of moral justification for their action. > One important thing to recognise is that such moral injury is not dependent on the pilot actually committing something morally prohibited. > For instance, if a soldier must use lethal force to protect an innocent family against an enemy soldier threatening the family's lives, the soldier's actions are typically deemed justified. > However, given the features of drones, this moral justification might not be properly felt by its pilot.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
glloydell 7y ago
I don't think that's the argument the author was making: "Further, there needs to be proper counselling and supports for pilots following use of lethal force. While such pilots might be removed from physical risks, we have a moral responsibility to ensure not just that drones are used in ways that adhere to the ethics of warfare, but that the pilots are adequately supported in their roles."
- tehjoker 7y ago
  Open question: why are we done bombing people again? I can't think of anything that is remotely justifiable. Even the "terrorists" excuse comes back to US bombings creating terrorists.

ambulancechaser 7y ago

that reminds me of a suggestion of where to keep nuclear codes: > My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, "George, I'm sorry but tens of millions must die." He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It's reality brought home. > When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button." > — Roger Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Fisher_(academic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Fisher_(academic)

tmb 7y ago
Direct link to article https://books.google.com/books?id=ygoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA16&ots=oVkrzABnMr&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ygoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA16&ots=...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

matz1 7y ago

Or just hire people who has different moral values. Is it so difficult to find? I personally don't have the problem pushing the kill button.

kbenson 7y ago
I think what we are seeing is people with different moral values that thought they wouldn't have a problem having a problem, so I'm not sure your suggestion would help (and you may want to consider that before volunteering yourself for something that might affect your mental health). I can't help but view this as similar to someone offering to work as a nurse "because they don't get sick".
- matz1 7y ago
  Yes, there are certainly people like that. But I'm referring to people with different moral value who really are wouldn't have problem. Its not that rare isn't it? Its different, because everyone can get sick. The more accurate analogy is someone offering to work as nurse because they are not afraid of blood.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    I think you'll have to prove to me that people like that exist, at least in a state that is acceptable enough that they can be employed by the military and not excluded because of those same problems. I suspect people like that cause far more problems than they solve. How many war atrocities do you need to make the entire idea cost more than its worth? And before someone jumps in that these are already atrocities, there's a huge difference between a mistake killing innocents or the idea of acceptable losses and slaughtering every man, woman and child in a village, because we've seen that before.
    - matz1 7y ago
      while I'm fairly certain I am that people, I'm not sure how to prove it to you. The war atrocities is either the issue of the leader making wrong decision or the soldier not following order. Assuming the leader made the correct decision of killing and the solider who execute that order is a solider who doesn't have moral qualm about the killing then what is the issue ?
      - 7y ago

nesadi 7y ago

It's a matter of perspective. For people who believe a strong military is important to protect their own country and in a geopolitical world where military capability is everything that matters, what else is there? If a conflict breaks out, nobody's going to stop just because some military operators could be traumatized. At most you get to choose which military personnel are affected, but overall there's no "good" outcome for anybody involved on a psychological/emotional level.

e12e 7y ago
There's a difference between having problems committing war crimes by employing tactical weapons on civilians and being willing to attack a military force?
- nesadi 7y ago
  Is every drone operator killing civilians? Is the sniper's syndrome limited to the operators who've killed civilians? Recent headlines about the US killing 30 farmers make it easy to confuse the context. I'm sure the operator(s) involved with that operation are traumatized. But that's not really the discussion here. As per the article > The rates of drone pilot burn out were in fact higher than that of traditional pilots. > Given that the target often posed no direct threat to the sniper, there was a moral dissonance about taking the life of someone who is no direct threat. This has obvious parallels to drone pilots. > Couple this with the familiarity that the drone pilot might have developed through long-term surveillance, and the target becomes an informationally rich human, rather than simply a blip on a screen. > Posing a threat to someone is often seen as a moral requirement in order for a solider to use lethal force against a target. However, the drone pilot is acting remotely, and they lose this sense of moral justification for their action. > One important thing to recognise is that such moral injury is not dependent on the pilot actually committing something morally prohibited. > For instance, if a soldier must use lethal force to protect an innocent family against an enemy soldier threatening the family's lives, the soldier's actions are typically deemed justified. > However, given the features of drones, this moral justification might not be properly felt by its pilot.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago

glloydell 7y ago

I don't think that's the argument the author was making: "Further, there needs to be proper counselling and supports for pilots following use of lethal force. While such pilots might be removed from physical risks, we have a moral responsibility to ensure not just that drones are used in ways that adhere to the ethics of warfare, but that the pilots are adequately supported in their roles."

tehjoker 7y ago
Open question: why are we done bombing people again? I can't think of anything that is remotely justifiable. Even the "terrorists" excuse comes back to US bombings creating terrorists.