7 ms·

I’m a million miles from this area, so I’m interested: [why] is a machine killing people more immoral than people killing people?

by mft_ 5y ago

1cvmask 5y ago
Exactly. We never needed machines before to kill each other or commit genocides or kill babies. We even vote murderers into office.
truth_ 5y ago
We use "machines" to kill people. Guns, grenades, flamethrowers are all machines much more advanced than their predecessors. But people batted their eyes on the advent of these weapons. People are going to bat eyes in the advent of these weapons as well. That is not going to stop Pentagon, China, or Russia from using these weapons. One issue could be that they are not as reliable as target seekers as they are good as target destroyers. And plenty of mistakes have been committed by humans in charge. Whether autonomous weapons system will be better than seeking and killing enemy combatants rather than innocent people is something to observe. Right now, autonomous systems are very very unreliable at this.
juanani 5y ago
So because people kill people, machines should be allowed to kill people? not even logical, I can see an argument being valid as in why shouldn't machines kill other machines. why do you think machines should be allowed to kill people?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Why do you think they shouldn't be allowed? We have been using machines to kill for a very long time, and this is the first I'm hearing of someone having an ethical problem with the fact that the killing is not done with bare hands. There may be ethical questions in war, but I don't see why the mechanisms should matter. Perhaps it should but you haven't even come close to making that case.
- mft_ 5y ago
  No offence, but that’s such a back-to-front interpretation of my simple question, it’s almost like you were trying to be contrary. Maybe my bad for assuming that any reasonable person reading wouldn’t need it stating that killing people is, yes, immoral. And given this shared understanding, the root of my question was why a machine killing people is more immoral.
- rualca 5y ago
  > So because people kill people, machines should be allowed to kill people? not even logical, I can see an argument being valid as in why shouldn't machines kill other machines. why do you think machines should be allowed to kill people? This argument is fatecious and irrational. You can argue whether it's acceptable to kill. Beyond that it makes rigorously no difference whether you kill someone with your bare hands or by pressing a button.
mariuolo 5y ago
> [why] is a machine killing people more immoral than people killing people? By detaching the moral choice from a person it makes killing more acceptable. At least that's my take.
the_only_law 5y ago
Well I guess for one: who's held accountable if it kills the wrong people? The engineers? probably not. The higher ups? I'm sure they've mastered the art of weaseling their way out of consequences by now.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Who decides who the "right people" are and what makes them correct?
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  We flew B-52s over Germany and Japan and dropped unguided munitions from far above. Britain flew bombing raids at night. Not sure about who was held accountable for killing the wrong people then. Generally speaking, over time we have become much more accurate at targeting specific people to kill, but we are still a very long way off from 100% accuracy, and none of the issues you raised are particularly novel to drones.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > We flew B-52s over Germany and Japan and dropped unguided munitions from far above. Britain flew bombing raids at night. Not sure about who was held accountable for killing the wrong people then. I would go a step further and point out the fact that while bombs are fired and aimed, landmines are designed specifically to kill and/or main indiscriminately.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      Bombs are "aimed" at a general region that could be a disk with a several mile wide diameter. Similar issues with artillery. Landmines are "aimed" at whatever happens to cross a particular small area. In one sense, they are much more accurate than bombs dropped from a high altitude bomber. But as we all know, they are more indiscriminate in another sense. Point being, all these tools are quite variable in who they kill, and whatever we are doing now with drones is going to be much more accurate than either of these earlier technologies. (I am not arguing that modern warfare is more "ethical" than older warfare, just that the parent poster seems to be a bit late to the party in observing that tools can be indiscriminate in who they kill).

I’m a million miles from this area, so I’m interested: [why] is a machine killing people more immoral than people killing people?

by mft_ 5y ago

I’m a million miles from this area, so I’m interested: [why] is a machine killing people more immoral than people killing people?

1cvmask 5y ago

Exactly. We never needed machines before to kill each other or commit genocides or kill babies. We even vote murderers into office.

truth_ 5y ago

We use "machines" to kill people. Guns, grenades, flamethrowers are all machines much more advanced than their predecessors. But people batted their eyes on the advent of these weapons. People are going to bat eyes in the advent of these weapons as well. That is not going to stop Pentagon, China, or Russia from using these weapons. One issue could be that they are not as reliable as target seekers as they are good as target destroyers. And plenty of mistakes have been committed by humans in charge. Whether autonomous weapons system will be better than seeking and killing enemy combatants rather than innocent people is something to observe. Right now, autonomous systems are very very unreliable at this.

juanani 5y ago

So because people kill people, machines should be allowed to kill people? not even logical, I can see an argument being valid as in why shouldn't machines kill other machines. why do you think machines should be allowed to kill people?

rsj_hn 5y ago
Why do you think they shouldn't be allowed? We have been using machines to kill for a very long time, and this is the first I'm hearing of someone having an ethical problem with the fact that the killing is not done with bare hands. There may be ethical questions in war, but I don't see why the mechanisms should matter. Perhaps it should but you haven't even come close to making that case.
mft_ 5y ago
No offence, but that’s such a back-to-front interpretation of my simple question, it’s almost like you were trying to be contrary. Maybe my bad for assuming that any reasonable person reading wouldn’t need it stating that killing people is, yes, immoral. And given this shared understanding, the root of my question was why a machine killing people is more immoral.
rualca 5y ago
> So because people kill people, machines should be allowed to kill people? not even logical, I can see an argument being valid as in why shouldn't machines kill other machines. why do you think machines should be allowed to kill people? This argument is fatecious and irrational. You can argue whether it's acceptable to kill. Beyond that it makes rigorously no difference whether you kill someone with your bare hands or by pressing a button.

mariuolo 5y ago

> [why] is a machine killing people more immoral than people killing people? By detaching the moral choice from a person it makes killing more acceptable. At least that's my take.

the_only_law 5y ago

Well I guess for one: who's held accountable if it kills the wrong people? The engineers? probably not. The higher ups? I'm sure they've mastered the art of weaseling their way out of consequences by now.

netizen-936824 5y ago
Who decides who the "right people" are and what makes them correct?
rsj_hn 5y ago
We flew B-52s over Germany and Japan and dropped unguided munitions from far above. Britain flew bombing raids at night. Not sure about who was held accountable for killing the wrong people then. Generally speaking, over time we have become much more accurate at targeting specific people to kill, but we are still a very long way off from 100% accuracy, and none of the issues you raised are particularly novel to drones.
- rualca 5y ago
  > We flew B-52s over Germany and Japan and dropped unguided munitions from far above. Britain flew bombing raids at night. Not sure about who was held accountable for killing the wrong people then. I would go a step further and point out the fact that while bombs are fired and aimed, landmines are designed specifically to kill and/or main indiscriminately.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Bombs are "aimed" at a general region that could be a disk with a several mile wide diameter. Similar issues with artillery. Landmines are "aimed" at whatever happens to cross a particular small area. In one sense, they are much more accurate than bombs dropped from a high altitude bomber. But as we all know, they are more indiscriminate in another sense. Point being, all these tools are quite variable in who they kill, and whatever we are doing now with drones is going to be much more accurate than either of these earlier technologies. (I am not arguing that modern warfare is more "ethical" than older warfare, just that the parent poster seems to be a bit late to the party in observing that tools can be indiscriminate in who they kill).