3 ms·

Can you or someone else explain to me why people seem to be more angry that a person was killed via a remote controlled vehicle that launched a missile? Why is

Can you or someone else explain to me why people seem to be more angry that a person was killed via a remote controlled vehicle that launched a missile? Why is that different than a vehicle doing the exact same thing with a pilot in it? Or, why is it worse than a cruise missile? I just don't understand why people care that a drone launched the missile rather than an A-10 or an F-18?

jacquesm 13y ago
I think the part that gets people is that someone in the comfort of some air conditioned shelter far away from the deed pushed a button and ended a human life without any risk to himself whatsoever. The asymmetry of the situation is what gets people ticked off. War is supposed to be costly to both sides, which is why it is a means of last resort. If one side can engage in war with 0 risk and hence 0 cost (other than monetary) war becomes too easy.
- icambron 13y ago
  I don't buy it. For one, the asymmetry in risk and strength between a manned supersonic fighter plane armed with laser-guided missiles and unarmed person on the ground is already massive. Drones should only piss you off slightly more. Second, I don't think the asymmetry is actually a problem; if you've decided to kill someone, you might as well do it by the most efficient means that pose the least risk to your personnel. In fact, if you have a really easy way to kill someone, you'd be a fool to use other means. To me, the problem is killing people. Killing people is wrong and you shouldn't do it. Shouldn't matter what means you have at your disposal. "How hard is this to do?" is not a proxy for "Should I do this?" If your counter is, "sure, abstractly that's right, but now how actual governments think", I guess I agree, but you're never going to talk them down from that by pressuring them to use less efficient killing machines. "But we have all these people to kill!" You're better off being angry about the decision to murder all these people, regardless of how it's done. Edit: grammar
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    I agree with you, it's just that I believe that is the reason why people are ticked off. Killing people is wrong, no matter what excuse you can come up with. Even killing terrorists is wrong. Even killing Bin Laden was wrong, even if it was done by boots on the ground rather than by drone strike. (I assume they wanted confirmation of the kill). Hauling him in front of a judge and having after due process and assuming he'd be found guilty serve the rest of his life behind bars would be acceptable.
bambax 13y ago
1- I am outraged that Obama can kill people who are not charged with any crime, drone or no drone. 2- Use of drones makes this worse, because they distort the traditional situation of war, where soldiers fight each other at a personal risk to themselves. This, on the contrary, is the moral equivalent of shooting someone in the back. In 18th century literary "salons" in Europe, people used to study moral dilemmas. One of the questions was "here's a button here that if pressed, would kill a very rich Chinese person. Upon her death, you would inherit all of her wealth. You don't know this person and you will never be associated with her death. Will you press the button?" At the time it was an entirely rhetorical question, and yet it generated a lot of debate and moral questioning. Today the question isn't rhetorical anymore (and "wealth" has been replaced by "a mild and temporary sentiment of increased security") and yet the moral debate has all but evaporated. How we allow ourselves to feel morally superior to 18th century aristocrats is beyond me.

jacquesm 13y ago

I think the part that gets people is that someone in the comfort of some air conditioned shelter far away from the deed pushed a button and ended a human life without any risk to himself whatsoever. The asymmetry of the situation is what gets people ticked off. War is supposed to be costly to both sides, which is why it is a means of last resort. If one side can engage in war with 0 risk and hence 0 cost (other than monetary) war becomes too easy.

icambron 13y ago
I don't buy it. For one, the asymmetry in risk and strength between a manned supersonic fighter plane armed with laser-guided missiles and unarmed person on the ground is already massive. Drones should only piss you off slightly more. Second, I don't think the asymmetry is actually a problem; if you've decided to kill someone, you might as well do it by the most efficient means that pose the least risk to your personnel. In fact, if you have a really easy way to kill someone, you'd be a fool to use other means. To me, the problem is killing people. Killing people is wrong and you shouldn't do it. Shouldn't matter what means you have at your disposal. "How hard is this to do?" is not a proxy for "Should I do this?" If your counter is, "sure, abstractly that's right, but now how actual governments think", I guess I agree, but you're never going to talk them down from that by pressuring them to use less efficient killing machines. "But we have all these people to kill!" You're better off being angry about the decision to murder all these people, regardless of how it's done. Edit: grammar
- jacquesm 13y ago
  I agree with you, it's just that I believe that is the reason why people are ticked off. Killing people is wrong, no matter what excuse you can come up with. Even killing terrorists is wrong. Even killing Bin Laden was wrong, even if it was done by boots on the ground rather than by drone strike. (I assume they wanted confirmation of the kill). Hauling him in front of a judge and having after due process and assuming he'd be found guilty serve the rest of his life behind bars would be acceptable.

bambax 13y ago

1- I am outraged that Obama can kill people who are not charged with any crime, drone or no drone. 2- Use of drones makes this worse, because they distort the traditional situation of war, where soldiers fight each other at a personal risk to themselves. This, on the contrary, is the moral equivalent of shooting someone in the back. In 18th century literary "salons" in Europe, people used to study moral dilemmas. One of the questions was "here's a button here that if pressed, would kill a very rich Chinese person. Upon her death, you would inherit all of her wealth. You don't know this person and you will never be associated with her death. Will you press the button?" At the time it was an entirely rhetorical question, and yet it generated a lot of debate and moral questioning. Today the question isn't rhetorical anymore (and "wealth" has been replaced by "a mild and temporary sentiment of increased security") and yet the moral debate has all but evaporated. How we allow ourselves to feel morally superior to 18th century aristocrats is beyond me.