Submit your order instructions

Get essay writer assigned

Receive your completed paper

The ethical dilemma of autonomous weapons systems in combat

The following army persuasive essay explores the ethical dilemmas posed by autonomous weapons systems in modern warfare. Though AWS promises to enhance operational efficiency and reduce human casualties, the essay writer proves that their deployment does bring up significant accountability concerns and questions of moral decision-making. This persuasive essay example essentially points out that as machines continue to play more lethal roles, the erosion of human responsibility and the unpredictability of AI-driven choices pose severe ethical concerns. Through analysis grounded by credible insight and research, this army essay paper ultimately argues that the risks associated with AWS greatly outweigh any possible benefits derived from their use and urges a cautious approach to their integration into combat environments.

Octobre 7, 2024

* The sample essays are for browsing purposes only and are not to be submitted as original work to avoid issues with plagiarism.

The Ethical Dilemma of Autonomous Weapons Systems in Combat

Institution

Student’s Name

Course Title

Instructor’s Name

Date of Submission

The Ethical Dilemma of Autonomous Weapons Systems in Combat

The progress of technologies is characterized by exponential growth, and hence, the

future of war slowly begins to look like a storyline from any science fiction novel. This

technology is already being progressively introduced into battle and raises a whole host of new

ethical issues. Amongst the more controversial technology developments in modern warfare, the

combat use of an AWS or machines capable of independently selecting and engaging targets has

been amongst the ones that are most discussed. What was once the figment of science fiction is

now turning into a not-so-distant possibility, bringing with it a host of concerns about the ethical

implications of decision-making being passed on to machines. Even as AWS is being hailed for

revolutionizing warfare to rise to unprecedented accuracy while minimizing the loss of human

lives, their deployment will bring with them burning controversies regarding moral acceptance,

rationality, and consequentialist assessment of war (Igbohor, 2024). This essay will establish that

while the integration of AWS can make them more effective and reduce casualties, their

deployment poses significant ethical and moral concerns, particularly in terms of

decision-making and accountability, thereby leaving less human warfare.

One of the main ethical concerns with reference to AWS is that this technology removes

human responsibility in war. In the existing laws of armed conflict, man is held accountable for

choices he makes in a belief that the use of force can remain moral and legal. In AWS, the foggy

line of accountability created hampers effective solutions. For instance, according to Human

Rights Watch key professionals interviewed for the annual report from 2020, there is no clarity

regarding accountability in the field for deployment other than human control (HRW, 2020).

Take for instance whether an autonomous system mistakenly targets civilians: Whose failure is

it: the commander who signed for the use of the weapon, the engineers who designed it into the

computer, or the computer itself? These characterizations disrupt the legal norms regarding

warfare, create loopholes in submission procedures, and do not allow assigning responsibility for

unlawful actions. The net effect is that AWS erodes accountability in warfare and makes it

difficult to ensure that accountability is achieved for rule violations.

Furthermore, the presence of uncertainty in the decision-making process with AWS

introduces further ethical issues with their deployment. Autonomous but grounded artificially

intelligent systems are in use in AWS for decision-making with algorithms for data processing

and decision making. There are often many negative outcomes that might ensue if algorithms fail

to operate as expected in reading contexts. An example of this sort of threat was a horrible

incident that occurred in 2020 with the Turkish Kargu-2 drone that while conducting an

autonomous attack on human targets without permission killed people (Zitser, 2021). This

underscores the eerie realism of the possibility for AWS to take an action that would potentially

harm people who are wholly unrelated to any conflict. Whereas the human soldier is capable of

coming up with various assessments given different scenarios and also adjusting to situations in

the dynamically changing battlefields, AWS lacks such qualities. This would be unable to

consider moral inputs or use ethical reasoning as a human does whereby the chances of attaining

avoidable loss and suffering rise a notch higher. The sometimes inherently unpredictable nature

of the AWS decision-making process itself presents an alarming risk insofar as these systems are

poorly fitted to handle the complexities and moral challenges that have defined the human

experience of war.

In addition to this, the deployment of AWS has very serious implications for eroding

human responsibility in warfare, with the growing lethal decision-making by machines. Human

soldiers would show moral responsibility for their actions, having made choices with an

awareness of the ethical consequences of an act of combat. AWS, on the other hand, disengages

acts of killing from human judgment and therefore erodes accountability in military conduction.

One 2022 study published in the Journal of Military Ethics estimated that drones and automated

systems desensitize soldiers to killing (Johnson, 2022). In further taking humans out of the

decision-making process, AWS exacerbates such desensitization and thereby contributes to the

dehumanization of warfare. Mechanization risks making lethal decisions and routine calculations

devoid of moral gravity. In this way, warfare could become an increasingly brutal and ethically

dubious practice, as soldiers are further removed from the physical and emotional consequences

of their actions, fundamentally undermining the honor and duty that define military service.

However, AWS proponents argue that these technologies help reduce human risk by

keeping soldiers out of harm's way in combat zones while increasing efficiency overall.

Supporters say that AWS can make more precise decisions compared to human beings since

AWS technologies would employ superior sensors and algorithms to minimize collateral

damage. According to a recent report published by the RAND Corporation, AWS would reduce

civilian casualties and military fatalities because AWS could process information and execute it

more rapidly than human capability allows for (RAND, 2022). But this perspective utterly

neglects some crucial ethical considerations about abandoning life-or-death decisions to

machines. The lesser number of casualties is indeed commendable, but not at the expense of

ethical accountability, in which machines lack moral judgment compared to human soldiers. The

International Committee of the Red Cross made a point that AWS is incapable of distinguishing

through the complex aspects of irregular warfare and mostly fails at distinguishing combatants

from civilians. While AWS may do fine in controlled environments, it falls short where human

moral reasoning and flexibility are required in real-world circumstances.

While AWS may, therefore, have its tactical advantages, they are also host to significant

ethical dilemmas. Removing human accountability and predictability of AI decision-making and

mechanizing acts of violence are serious arguments for the future of warfare. While supporters

argue that AWS saves human lives and makes the battlefield effective, these benefits are trumped

by the ethical risks they pose. In other words, as military technology continues to evolve, it is

important that human judgment and oversight remain central in combat decision-making. After

all, warfare is far from being only about efficiency and precision but a really moral and ethical

venture controlled by human responsibility. While autonomous weapons may finally promise a

future of combat with fewer hazards, ethical problems that they create deserve serious reflection

and scrutiny before their mass deployment.

References

HRW. (2020, August 10). Stopping Killer Robots. Retrieved from Human Rights Watch:

https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/08/10/stopping-killer-robots/country-positions-banning-

fully-autonomous-weapons-and

Igbohor, K. (2024, May 17). Unregulated Autonomous Weapons Systems pose a risk to Africa.

Retrieved from United Nations:

https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/may-2024/unregulated-autonomous-weapons

-systems-pose-risk-africa

Johnson, J. (2022). The AI Commander Problem: Ethical, Political, and Psychological Dilemmas

of Human-Machine Interactions in AI-enabled Warfare. Journal of Military Ethics, 21(3),

246-271.

RAND. (2022). Pentagon Processes on Civilian Casualties Inconsistent, in Need of Reform.

RAND Corporation.

Zitser, J. (2021, May 30). A rogue killer drone 'hunted down' a human target without being

instructed to, UN report says. Retrieved from Business Insider:

https://africa.businessinsider.com/news/a-rogue-killer-drone-hunted-down-a-human-targe

t-without-being-instructed-to-un-report/dwhg9s6

Octobre 7, 2024

24/7 custom essay writing by real academic writers

WPH

Academic level:

Undergraduate 1-2

Type of paper:

Persuasive essay

Discipline:

Military studies

Citation:

APA

Pages:

3 (825 words)