Technology and moral vacuums in just war theorising

Abstract

Our contemporary condition is deeply infused with scientific-technological rationales.These influence and shape our ethical reasoning on war, including the moral status of civilians and the moral choices available to us. In this article, I discuss how technology shapes and directs the moral choices available to us by setting parameters for moral deliberation. I argue that technology is an actant of moral significance to just war thinking, yet this is often overlooked in attempts to assess who is liable to harm in war and to what extent. This omission produces an undue deference to technological authority, reducing combatants, civilians, and scenarios to data points.If we are to develop a maximally restrictive framework for harming civilians in war, which I think should be a goal of just war thinking, then it is imperative that the scientific-technological dimension of contemporary war is given due attention.

Technology as Terrorism: Police Control Technologies and Drone Warfare

“…For example, the mere availability of a technology may be viewed as a moral reason for selecting it, as occurred when the Dallas Police Department used a bomb-disposal robot carrying C-4 explosives to kill a man who had shot five officers. In defending this action, Police Chief David Brown stated that "We had no choice, in my mind, but to use all tools necessary" ( [42], 281, emphasis added). The availability of the robot thereby played a role in "directing … moral deliberations" ( [42], 281) and was "influential in justifying such extreme means" ( [42], 285).…”

“…In defending this action, Police Chief David Brown stated that "We had no choice, in my mind, but to use all tools necessary" ( [42], 281, emphasis added). The availability of the robot thereby played a role in "directing … moral deliberations" ( [42], 281) and was "influential in justifying such extreme means" ( [42], 285). Once a technology is utilised in this way, further use of the technology rapidly becomes normalised and justified and diverts attention away from other possible courses of action: "legitimating the use of a technology is linked to its naturalization" ( [36], 65).…”

“…Thus, the choice of technology shapes moral decision-making in ways that can lead to a conflation between moral concepts such as justification and non-moral concepts such as efficiency. As Elke Schwarz explains, the "moral significance of choosing technological means might make some means that are not necessarily justified seem justified; it might make means that are not absolutely necessary seem necessary, and it might make technological tools that for whatever reason appear to be the most attractive option in a collection of available options seem like the only option" ( [42], 284-85). 2 1 McReynolds attributes this to the ways in which high-tech weapons, such as drones and longrange missiles, make killing seem "less violent … the more direct connection to it [violence] that accompanies low-tech violence tends to reflect poorly on the human and moral status of the person who carries it out."…”

“…For example, in her discussion of Gerhard Øverland's thought experiment involving the use of a flamethrower in self-defense that threatens the lives of others nearby, she writes: "Øverland posits that the permissibility of Mary using her flamethrower and killing the occupants of the house depends on how many people would die and how many would be saved. In this case, the cost of the destructive range of the technology at hand is assigned to the people in the house, who become 'moral obstacles', despite the fact that the availability of the flamethrower as a specific means of action is entirely invented by the thought experiment" ( [42], 284).…”

“…Algorithms offer one example of bias in the design and use of technology. As Schwarz explains, "how an algorithm functions and how it is trained reflects the values and principles of its intended uses and its designers … They regularly reflect the aims and intentions of their makers and normalize their positions and priorities (values)" ( [42], 292). For example, studies on facial recognition technologies in the context of law enforcement have found that these technologies reflect and reinforce racial bias.…”