The Soldier’s Share: Considering Narrow Responsibility for Lethal Autonomous Weapons

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Kevin Schieman
{"title":"The Soldier’s Share: Considering Narrow Responsibility for Lethal Autonomous Weapons","authors":"Kevin Schieman","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2023.2166448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n Robert Sparrow (among others) claims that if an autonomous weapon were to commit a war crime, it would cause harm for which no one could reasonably be blamed. Since no one would bear responsibility for the soldier’s share of killing in such cases, he argues that they would necessarily violate the requirements of jus in bello, and should be prohibited by international law. I argue this view is mistaken and that our moral understanding of war is sufficient to determine blame for any wrongful killing done by autonomous weapons. Analyzing moral responsibility for autonomous weapons starts by recognizing that although they are capable of causing moral consequences, they are neither praiseworthy nor blameworthy in the moral sense. As such, their military role is that of a tool, albeit a rather sophisticated one, and responsibility for their use is roughly analogous to that of existing “smart” weapons. There will likely be some difficulty in managing these systems as they become more intelligent and more prone to unpredicted behavior, but the moral notion of shared responsibility and the legal notion of command responsibility are sufficient to locate responsibility for their use.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"228 - 245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Military Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2023.2166448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Robert Sparrow (among others) claims that if an autonomous weapon were to commit a war crime, it would cause harm for which no one could reasonably be blamed. Since no one would bear responsibility for the soldier’s share of killing in such cases, he argues that they would necessarily violate the requirements of jus in bello, and should be prohibited by international law. I argue this view is mistaken and that our moral understanding of war is sufficient to determine blame for any wrongful killing done by autonomous weapons. Analyzing moral responsibility for autonomous weapons starts by recognizing that although they are capable of causing moral consequences, they are neither praiseworthy nor blameworthy in the moral sense. As such, their military role is that of a tool, albeit a rather sophisticated one, and responsibility for their use is roughly analogous to that of existing “smart” weapons. There will likely be some difficulty in managing these systems as they become more intelligent and more prone to unpredicted behavior, but the moral notion of shared responsibility and the legal notion of command responsibility are sufficient to locate responsibility for their use.
士兵的责任:考虑致命自主武器的狭义责任
罗伯特·斯派罗(Robert Sparrow)等人声称,如果一种自主武器犯下战争罪,它会造成任何人都无法合理指责的伤害。由于在这种情况下,没有人会对士兵的杀戮承担责任,他认为,这些行为必然违反了战争法的要求,应该受到国际法的禁止。我认为这种观点是错误的,我们对战争的道德理解足以确定自主武器造成的任何不当杀戮的责任。分析自主武器的道德责任首先要认识到,尽管它们能够造成道德后果,但从道德意义上讲,它们既不值得赞扬,也不值得指责。因此,它们的军事作用是一种工具,尽管相当复杂,使用它们的责任大致类似于现有的“智能”武器。随着这些系统变得更加智能,更容易出现不可预测的行为,管理这些系统可能会遇到一些困难,但分担责任的道德概念和指挥责任的法律概念足以确定使用这些系统的责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Military Ethics
Journal of Military Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信