Ethics Assignment 1300 Words

Ethical Theory

Robert Ponton

UAGC

Professor Wise

PHI 208

6/29/2022

Ethical Question

Is it acceptable for a nation to use drone strikes on suspect terrorists, even when they are citizens of other nations with whom we are not in conflict?

Introduction

As a result of 9/11, there's been a lot of debate over whether to deploy drone assaults. Rather than risk the lives of pilots, the United States elected to use the relatively new drone technology that we had rather than endangering the lives of pilots to carry out deadly air strikes. US Air Force's major goal is to be capable of attacking any target on the planet at any given moment, wherever they may be. Many individuals believe that drone attacks kill a high number of unarmed civilians. There are several advantages to using drones over traditional weapons systems, including the ability to utilize them in heavily populated regions with minimal or no collateral damage. In recent years, we've found that drones are excellent at striking targets that are concealed within buildings or other structures. Computer-controlled ordnance allows a bomb to be dropped through a building's roof and kill everyone inside while causing no damage to the outside world. During the Gulf War, we used this technology to show how precise our weapons were by dropping a bomb down a chimney to demonstrate how accurate our weapons were. A common misconception is that drone strikes are carried out with minimal concern for civilians, since the news media tends to draw attention to when many people are killed as a result of acts of armed aggression. Although airstrikes of any magnitude are logistically hard, none of the hits I've seen have resulted in civilian fatalities or damaged neighboring buildings, despite the fact that they have fully removed the target. Even more astounding is the fact that most bombings take place in cities or villages that should have been emptied of any surviving inhabitants before they are targeted.

Explanation of the Ethical Theory

I will be talking about deontology, which is a type of ethical theory, in the following segment of this article. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, is credited with the development of deontology in the 18th century. In addition to the theory of deontology, Kant developed the concept of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is "the ultimate moral principle," as Kant refers to it in his writings (Kant, 2008, p.4). The categorical imperative can be expressed in two different ways: by requiring consistent behavior and by treating everyone with respect. Both are important aspects of the categorical imperative. Kant referred to his formulation of the supreme moral principle as a universal law when he originally presented it. The following is how he outlined the regulations: When I act, I should not do so in a manner that prevents me from simultaneously wishing that the principle on which I base my actions to become a standard followed by everyone. The emphasis in this quotation is placed on two primary points. An "essentially the policy or principle" that one adheres to when making conscious, deliberate decisions, and then there's the universal rule that should be followed by all the people in the world (Thames, B, 2018). It is not clear whether a person who is likely to fail a class in college but has the option of purchasing an essay on the internet that will guarantee his success should submit the paper in the form of a guarantee that universal law and what a maxim is. This is because it is unclear what a guarantee is. If the rumor is true, then he won't be failing his class, so he should be able to save some money by buying a paper to pass the class. The issue with this hypothetical situation is what would take place if everyone strictly adhered to this rule. Because there will be no progress made in the writing process, plagiarism is an unavoidable consequence. It would be unethical to make this into a universal rule if you tried to do so.

Application of the Ethical Theory

Finally, I'd want to know about the legality of other countries attacking our military installations when we aren't engaged in hostilities with them. Deontology presents a significant challenge when applied to this premise. According to the theory of deontology, people who serve in the military forces have a responsibility to protect and serve, and that part of that obligation tragically occasionally means taking life. If everyone had to carry out the part of that duty that no one in their right mind would do, then a universal law would be created, which would be unenforceable since it would compel people to commit acts of violence against others for no good reason. A global legislation prohibiting the killing of others is not possible. As a result, it would be unethical for the government to use drones to hunt out people it suspects of being terrorists. When it comes to deontology, we are obligated to do good and to abstain from doing harm, even if such actions seem like better choices at the time. Given this, we can infer that, even though killing terrorists would benefit the world, we shouldn't do it because we have a duty to do actions that are good in and of themselves, which is the underlying concept of my argument. We should obey the norms of deontology and avoid murder at all costs, despite of the fact that they won't be able to damage anybody else, since killing is evil regardless of whether or not they can harm anyone else.

References

Thames, B. (2018) How Should One Live? An Introduction to Ethics and Moral Reasoning. Lacina Publishing Services. https://content.ashford.edu/books/Thames.5057.18.1/sections/ch10sec10.2

Drone Strikes in Afghanistan. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war/charts? show_casualties=1&show_injuries=1&show_strikes=1&location=afghanistan&from=20 15-1-1&to=now

Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. In J. Bennett (Ed. & Trans.),

Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved

from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf