Current arguments on the morality of drone strikes
Current arguments on the morality of drone strikes follow the extensive military deployment of drones in the battle against terrorism by both the US and British governments. Unlike previous military weapons that generated ethical quandaries due to their destructive nature, the deployment of drone attacks poses a distinct set of ethical quandaries. Drone warfare removes soldiers from the battlefield and its repercussions. Several opponents of the method argue that using a drone to eliminate an enemy is equivalent to killing through remote control. Apart from the foregoing moral argument against the use of drones, recent research have found a troubling tendency in drone deployment. The Stanford and York Universities published a study titled "Living under Drones" by Cavallaro, Sonnenberg, and Knuckey (2012) which showed immoral deployment of these weapons by the Central Intelligence Agency. The pattern, designated as a double tap, had CIA drone operators rapidly persecute a second strike on a previous target. The second attack targeted individuals trying to rescue the casualties of the previous drone strikes or those in attendance of funerals resultant of the previous drone strike (Woods & Lambs, 2012). Civilian deaths caused by drone strikes in Pakistan for instance, far outnumber the terrorists killed through the tactic (Woods & Lambs, 2012). The ethical considerations noted above will be investigated in this paper from a utilitarian theory of ethics which aptly helps the investigation of ethics from the perspective of the consequences of the actions – in this case, the deployment of drones in the fight against terrorism. The theory will demonstrate the immorality of drone strikes in the fight against terror, as well as demonstrate that the use of drones can equate to a form of terrorism.
The Utilitarianism Ethical Theory
John Stuart Mill offered a short discourse on the nature of the utilitarianism theory. Mill emphasized that while the morality of actions can be judged from the pleasure or pain they bring to human life, one must take go a step further and define the quality of happiness that arises from the pleasure an action brings (Mill, 2009). Therefore, utilitarianism as a theory is concerned with the principle of the greatest happiness an action is likely to bring about, and it seeks to promote the capacity to achieve the greater happiness. Moral actions, therefore, should always result in the achievement of the greater good. This principle of utilitarianism can be applied to specific actions or general rules. When applied to specific actions, it is referred to as act-utilitarianism, and when applied to general rules, it is referred to as rule-utilitarianism. Act-utilitarianism refers to the application of the principle of a specific act in a situation where the actor has several choices. An act can thus be considered ethical under act-utilitarianism if its consequences contribute to the best result or greatest happiness (Mill, 2009). Rule-utilitarianism, on the contrary, invokes the application of the principle in the validation of rules of conduct. Subsequently, under rule-utilitarianism, an action is ethical if it does not break the accepted rules of the society.
Application
Hence, when the consequences of drone strikes are weighed against the achievement of the greater happiness, it becomes apparent that drone strikes, as employed by the fight against terrorism are unethical. Specifically, the application of the rule-utilitarianism reveals that drone strikes are unethical as demonstrated in the following argument. If drone strikes in their current application are allowed, then we would live in a world where military commanders would command drone strikes in any confrontation at will. The commanders would not take into account the consequences of the use of drone strikes, which as noted earlier result in civilian casualties, and hence would contravene the Geneva Protocols that guide the conduct of warfare. The same applies to act-utilitarianism. The action of invoking drone strikes in their current form may serve to eradicate terrorists, but it comes with the inherent consequence of civilian casualties, and, therefore, it does not generate the best results or contribute to the greater happiness. In that light, the immorality of drone strikes is demonstrable. First, the pilot of the drone aircraft is detached from the consequences, hence the person is open to persecute civilian targets. Killing women and children as a result of the detachment is immoral and unethical on the basis that the consequences do not lead to the greater happiness of the global community.
Objection
However, rule-utilitarianism, as discussed, however, disposes itself to one particular undesirable interpretation. Relying on rule-utilitarianism, one can argue that it is possible to formulate unjust rules in the application of the theory (Barrow, 2015). For instance, in the case of drone warfare, one can argue that the civilian casualties’ resultant from the detached killing expedited by drones is tolerable as long as it leads to the death of a terrorist. Under that argument, the proponent leverages on the point that drone strikes, while occasioning civilian casualties, also cultivates the happiness of the society by eradicating actors in the terror network. Act-utilitarianism is also subject to the undesirable application in the justification of immoral acts. The consequence of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes can be justified as long as they contribute to the eradication of a known terrorist in the same way that the immoral proposition of torturing young children in an attempt to have them reveal the hideouts of their insurgent furthers can be justified under the rule.
Conclusion
On face value, the drone strikes are immoral and unethical. They detach the soldier from the consequences of the battlefield, hence making them more likely to carry out attacks on civilian populations. Since it takes little part in the persecution of a target, most of the times they only press a button on a keyboard, the ethical repercussions of drone strikes cannot be denied. The utilitarianism theory provides a succinct investigation of the ethical challenges against drone strike by comparing the actions of the persecutor takes, and the consequences of those actions. As such, it becomes evident that drone strikes as an isolated action are immoral because the consequence of civilian casualties conflicts with the greater happiness of the society. The action also breaks the rules of the society validating its lack of ethical foundations. However, under utilitarianism as suggested by Mills (2009), it is possible to justify the use of drones by defending the immoral consequences in the light of the greater good achieved by the strikes. However, in a just and reasonable society, humanity lives in today, the misapplication of utilitarianism in the construction of an argument for drone strikes should not exist (Budolfson, 2016). As such, utilitarianism, as formulated by Mills, is a viable opposition and demonstration of the unethical nature of drone strikes in the fight against terrorism.
References
Barrow, R. (2015). Utilitarianism: A contemporary statement. Routledge Revivals.
Budolfson, M. (2016). The inefficacy objection to consequentialism and the problem with the expected consequences response. Retrieved on June 12, 2017 from: https://b1bc346f-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/budolfson/papers/BudolfsonKagan.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cp7Ne1F1eqvkN9kRuhCLHslcYsnIpIZQK7okw-QV48_Rm1uz4gnbvgLVWqDhS_GJkhG0-4N9YCyHNRMHd22NIv25GNoPBMEwfCbeQs26IZ9IH36Z_pWwCwrJpJN6pRk6pom6_N6VhhIn7Z3mTI6BCfEGIL7b4EcTCnUJn29yVFlva8Cde6jk2QtcBjTuQpnX9u4JYPerYQQwYeXOvl_s0Wxt-rHGbzQbNVeh3bR54PfZE6yVDE%3D&attredirects=0
Cavallaro, J., Sonnenberg, S., & Knuckey, S. (2012). Living under drones: Death, Injury and trauma to civilians from US drone practices in Pakistan. Retrieved on June 13, 2017 from: https://law.stanford.edu/publications/living-under-drones-death-injury-and-trauma-to-civilians-from-us-drone-practices-in-pakistan/
Mill, J. S. (2009). Utilitarianism: [1901]. Cornell University Library.
Woods, C., & Lambs, C. (2012). CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals. Retrieved on June 13, 2017 from: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-02-04/cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals
