4 ms·

This contributes another ethical quality though: if the other person can shoot back, you have a right to go all out in order to defend yourself. The same cannot

This contributes another ethical quality though: if the other person can shoot back, you have a right to go all out in order to defend yourself. The same cannot be said for unmanned warfare, where the immediate danger is asymmetric.

samatman 4y ago
I don't think it's possible to reconcile the battlefield with an ethics of self defense. You can pick a side that way, yes, but the doctrines of justifiable homicide simply don't hold up in battle.
- Someone 4y ago
  In modern wars, especially those were one party is a lot stronger than the other and wants to keep the moral high ground, ethics does come into play. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement: “Rules of engagement (ROE) are the internal rules or directives afforded military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities. In some nations, articulated ROE have the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE constitute lawful command. Rules of engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved, but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.” Soldiers won’t be allowed to destroy a house on the grounds that it can be used by a sniper, for example, but must have reasonable certainty that it is being used as such.
  - samatman 4y ago
    Yes but not the ethics of self defense, such as a doctrine of clear and present danger. Self defense doesn't have a concept of a combatant, only an immediate threat to the safety of yourself or another.
Manuel_D 4y ago
Couldn't the same be said of an artilleryman? Or a bomber pilot dropping ordnance on a position with no AA defense? Or a tanker shelling infantry with no AT gear?

samatman 4y ago

I don't think it's possible to reconcile the battlefield with an ethics of self defense. You can pick a side that way, yes, but the doctrines of justifiable homicide simply don't hold up in battle.

Someone 4y ago
In modern wars, especially those were one party is a lot stronger than the other and wants to keep the moral high ground, ethics does come into play. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement: “Rules of engagement (ROE) are the internal rules or directives afforded military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities. In some nations, articulated ROE have the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE constitute lawful command. Rules of engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved, but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.” Soldiers won’t be allowed to destroy a house on the grounds that it can be used by a sniper, for example, but must have reasonable certainty that it is being used as such.
- samatman 4y ago
  Yes but not the ethics of self defense, such as a doctrine of clear and present danger. Self defense doesn't have a concept of a combatant, only an immediate threat to the safety of yourself or another.

Manuel_D 4y ago

Couldn't the same be said of an artilleryman? Or a bomber pilot dropping ordnance on a position with no AA defense? Or a tanker shelling infantry with no AT gear?