The Significance of a Duty's Direction

Hedahl, Marcus

doi:10.26556/jesp.v7i3.75

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At its heart, consequentialism stands opposed to actions having fundamentally directed deontic status. 24 As debates about special obligations indicate, in claiming that our duties rest on bringing about particular outcomes, consequentialism struggles to account for how the performance of our duties can be owed to specific individuals or how failures of duty wrong them. After all, having a duty to a person is crucially different from having a duty to realize some state of affairs.…”

Section: Conclusion: Self Other and Directed Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Must I Benefit Myself?

Cholbi

2020

The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morality seems to require us to attend to the good of others, but it does not require that we assign any importance to our own good. Standard forms of consequentialism thus appear vulnerable to the compulsory self-benefit objection: they require agents to benefit themselves when doing so is entailed by the requirement of maximizing overall impersonal good. Attempts to address this objection by appealing to ideally motivated consequentialist agents; by rejecting maximization; by leveraging consequentialist responses to the more familiar special relationships and demandingness objections; or by appealing to dual rankings of moral and all-things-considered reasons fall short of adequately answering this objection. A satisfactory response to the compulsory self-benefit objection is elusive because of consequentialism struggles to account for directed options (in this case, an option not to maximize one’s own good but not that of others) and for moral considerations that do not rest on the value of outcomes or states of affairs.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: Self Other and Directed Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Must I Benefit Myself?

Cholbi

2020

The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Sweatshops, Structural Injustice, and the Wrong of Exploitation: Why Multinational Corporations Have Positive Duties to the Global Poor

Berkey

2019

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autonomous weapon systems and the claim-rights of innocents on the battlefield

Cantrell

2021

AI Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A goal of any modern war ought to be the minimization of innocent death and injury, while at the same time, maximizing the potential to decisively defeat the enemy as quickly and efficiently as is possible. As the techniques for warfighting have evolved, a growing trend of reliance on sophisticated technology has followed. Likely, autonomous systems will increasingly play a role-lethal and non-lethal-in future wars. Much of the current debate surrounding such autonomous systemsautonomous weapons systems (AWS) to be exact-is "pre-implementational" and potentially lags the political and military realities in the. Nations and non-nation state groups are actively pursuing the possibility of deploying such systems on the battlefield. The "pre-implementation" nature of these discussions risks making any one of them irrelevant as these nations continue to move ahead with development. As such, philosophers, military tacticians, political leaders, and other researchers in the field of artificial intelligence ethics must "get ahead of the curve" and examine what the battlefield and the laws of armed conflict ought to look like when-not if-such systems are deployed. Supporting this move from "pre-implementation" to "post-implementation", this paper makes a normative claim about the nature of the relationship between innocents on the battlefield and combatants, given certain pre-conditions are met. I argue that, if and only if autonomous weapon systems reach a point in their development where they are capable of being both more discriminating in their target selection and more proportionate in their response to threats, then innocents on the battlefield 1 (as a social kind) have a claim-right to not be unjustly harmed against both sets of combatants, claiming that AWS be used in place of human soldiers. KeywordsAutonomous weapon systems • Innocent on the battlefield • Civilians • Combatants • Claim-rights * Hunter Cantrell

show abstract

The Significance of a Duty's Direction

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

Must I Benefit Myself?

Must I Benefit Myself?

Sweatshops, Structural Injustice, and the Wrong of Exploitation: Why Multinational Corporations Have Positive Duties to the Global Poor

Autonomous weapon systems and the claim-rights of innocents on the battlefield

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About