6 ms·

Is it really evil to use drones to kill evil people?

__s 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...
nonameiguess 6y ago
I'm not personally against usage of drones in some totally general way, but we should keep in mind why the Bush to Obama shift was made. Aside from the technology simply maturing and growing more viable, we went away from having teams of special operators apprehend terrorism suspects in surgical snatch and grab operations and toward just murdering them with drones for two basic reasons. One, surgical snatch and grab operations sometimes result in high profile failures where US operators are themselves captured or die in the process, which becomes a huge local media sensation. Two, when you arrest people, you run into the issue of what to do with them. Hence, all of the continuing problems with Guantanamo. Do you give them rights? Transfer them to regular prisons? Release them? Hold an actual trial at some point? We still haven't figured it out, and the easiest answer is just stop arresting people and kill them instead. I leave it to you to decide which of the two options is more ethical, but the reasons we did it have nothing to do with ethics. And drones are inherently less precise and also kill whoever happens to be nearby a lot more often than Seal Team Six.
- vmception 6y ago
  When another country or organization turns their drones on us because of our antiquated human rights ideas, inability to form consensus, and extreme ideologies - from their perspective - opinions will get much clearer. Best way to stop the drone wars at this point are for us to stop now.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
That's a specialized version of the question, is it really evil to kill evil people? But it's also a bit off-topic; the more important one is, are only evil people getting killed by drone strikes executed by people who (claim to) try to kill only evil people? The answer to that is a resounding no. We can debate the specifics of this, but it wasn't my point. My point was, the concept of layers of indirection making perpetrating evil/immoral acts easier is a well-recognized one[0], and drone strikes are the usual example - the killer has no personal risk, and the act itself involves operating video game controllers while watching a low-resolution image of distant events. And, for many practical reasons, this has been embraced by the military. Cheaper, less trauma for soldiers, less bad press, less likely the soldier will hesitate or spare the lives of their targets. And thus I'm asking: if that works so well for killing, and there isn't a big pushback against this[1], then why criticize the case where the similar levels of detachment are making people more likely to do good deeds? If people are more likely to donate to good causes further away than they are to those close to them, then why not be just happy that more people are donating to good causes? -- [0] - It most likely has a formal name in psychology, but I'm not aware of it. [1] - There is some pushback, but I don't see it rising to the level actually influencing any decision-making in the US.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  >My point was, the concept of layers of indirection making perpetrating evil/immoral acts easier is a well-recognized one It seems that you are again assuming that drone strikes are evil immoral acts. Most people view civilian casualties in war as a trolley car problem, (e.g. a necessary evil in an overall moral action)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kaba0 6y ago
    Why is there war in the first place? Also, it is a created trolley car problem not the trolley car problem. And creating such a situation instead of coming across it is definitely morally evil.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      How is it a new trolly problem? Technology may have changed, but I don't see how that changes the morality. If it is moral to minimize the deaths by pulling a lever, shouldn't it also be moral to invent the lever? Someone can certainly argue that drone strikes are not always an effective way to save lives, but if they are, I don't see an argument that makes them evil.
  - olyjohn 6y ago
    Do most people really think that? I kind of doubt it.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      here is some survey data from 2015 showing that the majory approves of drone strikes with a 58 to 35 approval. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/05/28/public-continues-to-back-u-s-drone-attacks/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/05/28/public-conti...
  - c1ccccc1 6y ago
s1artibartfast 6y ago
Most Americans would say it isn't evil and are willing to accept the civilian casualties of doing so. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/05/28/public-continues-to-back-u-s-drone-attacks/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/05/28/public-conti...
jonathanstrange 6y ago
Yes, because these are extrajudicial killings with high death tolls and serious injuries for bystanders. Suppose China, Russia, or the EU would conduct drone strikes on US soil but only target evil people such as Donald Rumsfeld, who is known to have ordered torture and initiated a war under false pretense. However, many bystanders including women and children would be killed as well. Would you be against it? I would be against that, no doubt about it.
mgerullis 6y ago
It’s so funny for people to have this concept of "evil" as if that were axiomatic.
vmception 6y ago
What's the difference between a Pakistanian wedding and a terror cell? Don't ask me I just fly the drone
ping_pong 6y ago
Evil by whose definition? For every person that is labelled "evil" by the US, I'm sure there are thousands who would consider them "good". I would hazard to guess that there are more people who considered Osa Bin Laden "good" than consider you "good" and could make a case that you are "evil". Does that means that they have a right to kill you? Or does the US government only get the right to designate people Good or Evil?

__s 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...

nonameiguess 6y ago

I'm not personally against usage of drones in some totally general way, but we should keep in mind why the Bush to Obama shift was made. Aside from the technology simply maturing and growing more viable, we went away from having teams of special operators apprehend terrorism suspects in surgical snatch and grab operations and toward just murdering them with drones for two basic reasons. One, surgical snatch and grab operations sometimes result in high profile failures where US operators are themselves captured or die in the process, which becomes a huge local media sensation. Two, when you arrest people, you run into the issue of what to do with them. Hence, all of the continuing problems with Guantanamo. Do you give them rights? Transfer them to regular prisons? Release them? Hold an actual trial at some point? We still haven't figured it out, and the easiest answer is just stop arresting people and kill them instead. I leave it to you to decide which of the two options is more ethical, but the reasons we did it have nothing to do with ethics. And drones are inherently less precise and also kill whoever happens to be nearby a lot more often than Seal Team Six.

vmception 6y ago
When another country or organization turns their drones on us because of our antiquated human rights ideas, inability to form consensus, and extreme ideologies - from their perspective - opinions will get much clearer. Best way to stop the drone wars at this point are for us to stop now.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

That's a specialized version of the question, is it really evil to kill evil people? But it's also a bit off-topic; the more important one is, are only evil people getting killed by drone strikes executed by people who (claim to) try to kill only evil people? The answer to that is a resounding no. We can debate the specifics of this, but it wasn't my point. My point was, the concept of layers of indirection making perpetrating evil/immoral acts easier is a well-recognized one[0], and drone strikes are the usual example - the killer has no personal risk, and the act itself involves operating video game controllers while watching a low-resolution image of distant events. And, for many practical reasons, this has been embraced by the military. Cheaper, less trauma for soldiers, less bad press, less likely the soldier will hesitate or spare the lives of their targets. And thus I'm asking: if that works so well for killing, and there isn't a big pushback against this[1], then why criticize the case where the similar levels of detachment are making people more likely to do good deeds? If people are more likely to donate to good causes further away than they are to those close to them, then why not be just happy that more people are donating to good causes? -- [0] - It most likely has a formal name in psychology, but I'm not aware of it. [1] - There is some pushback, but I don't see it rising to the level actually influencing any decision-making in the US.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
>My point was, the concept of layers of indirection making perpetrating evil/immoral acts easier is a well-recognized one It seems that you are again assuming that drone strikes are evil immoral acts. Most people view civilian casualties in war as a trolley car problem, (e.g. a necessary evil in an overall moral action)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kaba0 6y ago
  Why is there war in the first place? Also, it is a created trolley car problem not the trolley car problem. And creating such a situation instead of coming across it is definitely morally evil.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    How is it a new trolly problem? Technology may have changed, but I don't see how that changes the morality. If it is moral to minimize the deaths by pulling a lever, shouldn't it also be moral to invent the lever? Someone can certainly argue that drone strikes are not always an effective way to save lives, but if they are, I don't see an argument that makes them evil.
- olyjohn 6y ago
  Do most people really think that? I kind of doubt it.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    here is some survey data from 2015 showing that the majory approves of drone strikes with a 58 to 35 approval. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/05/28/public-continues-to-back-u-s-drone-attacks/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/05/28/public-conti...
- c1ccccc1 6y ago

s1artibartfast 6y ago

Most Americans would say it isn't evil and are willing to accept the civilian casualties of doing so. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/05/28/public-continues-to-back-u-s-drone-attacks/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/05/28/public-conti...

jonathanstrange 6y ago

Yes, because these are extrajudicial killings with high death tolls and serious injuries for bystanders. Suppose China, Russia, or the EU would conduct drone strikes on US soil but only target evil people such as Donald Rumsfeld, who is known to have ordered torture and initiated a war under false pretense. However, many bystanders including women and children would be killed as well. Would you be against it? I would be against that, no doubt about it.

mgerullis 6y ago

It’s so funny for people to have this concept of "evil" as if that were axiomatic.

vmception 6y ago

What's the difference between a Pakistanian wedding and a terror cell? Don't ask me I just fly the drone

ping_pong 6y ago

Evil by whose definition? For every person that is labelled "evil" by the US, I'm sure there are thousands who would consider them "good". I would hazard to guess that there are more people who considered Osa Bin Laden "good" than consider you "good" and could make a case that you are "evil". Does that means that they have a right to kill you? Or does the US government only get the right to designate people Good or Evil?