Programming the Perfect Soldier
The Ethics of "Autonomous" Lethal Robots
The development by experts of robots that could identify and destroy targets, but unlike human soldiers would not be able to commit war crimes, has sparked debate. The work is spearheaded by computer scientist Ronald C. Arkin and has been reviewed by philosopher Colin Allen, among others. The use of robotics in the battlefield is nothing new, but the concept of independently reasoning machine soldiers may ethically be a ground-breaking development.
The Instrumental Soldier
Stacey Edgar, in his book Morality and Machines (Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett, 1997), observes that military commanders from at least the time of Frederick the Great in the 18th century have been ambitious to eliminate the human element from combat. "When soldiers can make decisions, run for cover, surrender, or take the initiative on their own, they are out of the control of the generals....Thus an army of robot warriors that could fight well would be desirable to most generals; they could control their troops' every move".
Nicholas Evans, in his survey of Military Gadgets (New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2004) describes an initiative of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), known as Brain Machine Interfaces. In existence since the mid 1960s, the programme aims to "access codes in the brain in real time and integrate them into peripheral device or system operations". In other words, the soldier would no longer be required to personally assess and decide. Rather than "acting on thoughts", he or she would have, via remote control, "thoughts that could act".
Decisions in the Heat of Battle
The difference between the notion of remote-controlled human soldiers (and drones currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan) and the latest wave of research is the element of autonomy. The prospect of robots, even within ethical parameters, making their own decisions to kill raises questions. For example:
Where would responsibility lie? Edgar quotes Gary Chapman on the dilemma of killing committed by a robot entity that could not experience doubt or consequences. "Autonomous weapons subvert all international law concerning the just deployment of force because computers can never be punished". If something were to go wrong, who would be to blame?
Could a machine deal with the "messiness" of war? World War 1 German army captain Adolf von Schell, cited by Edgar, observed: "Every soldier should know that war is kaleidoscopic, replete with constantly changing, unexpected, confusing situations". Would it be possible to design a robot that could, for example, discriminate faultlessly between "friendly", "neutral" and "hostile" individuals? Were the technology ever to spread to, for example, domestic counter-terrorism operations, such a programming task might be even more difficult.
Not Perfect, But BetterThan People
A 2006 survey in a Pentagon report (compiled by the Mental Health Advisory Team) found that more than a third of soldiers and marines serving in Iraq condoned torture, and most did not believe all civilians should be treated with dignity. Arkin's ethical-soldier work aims not at perfection but at the design of robots that at least would not lash out in fear or anger, or react with violence to the death of a colleague.
An Inevitable Development?
Allen, co-author with Wendell Wallach of Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right From Wrong (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) considers that the increasing deployment of robot soldiers is likely, and that it is better to have the debate about ethics rather than to avoid the issue.
A critic of the US-sponsored project is Noel Sharkey of Sheffield University, who has raised issues around the technology getting into the hands of terrorists and opposes the idea of robots making decisions to kill humans.
Evolution of the soldier?
|
More in Politics & Society
Latest Articles