Bridging the Responsibility Gap in Automated Warfare
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Sparrow (J Appl Philos 24:62–77, 2007) argues that military robots capable of making their own decisions would be independent enough to allow us denial for their actions, yet too unlike us to be the targets of meaningful blame or praise—thereby fostering what Matthias (Ethics Inf Technol 6:175–183, 2004) has dubbed “the responsibility gap.” We agree with Sparrow that someone must be held responsible for all actions taken in a military conflict. That said, we think Sparrow overlooks the possibility of what we term “blank check” responsibility: A person of sufficiently high standing could accept responsibility for the actions of autonomous robotic devices—even if that person could not be causally linked to those actions besides this prior agreement. The basic intuition behind our proposal is that humans can impute relations even when no other form of contact can be established. The missed alternative we want to highlight, then, would consist in an exchange: Social prestige in the occupation of a given office would come at the price of signing away part of one's freedoms to a contingent and unpredictable future guided by another (in this case, artificial) agency.
- Arkin, R. C. (2009). Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall. CrossRef
- Arkin, R.C., Ulam, P. (2009). An ethical adaptor: behavioral modification derived from moral emotions. Technical Report GIT-GVU-09-04, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
- Asaro, P. M. (2008). How just could a robot war be? In A. Briggle, K. Waelbers, & P. Brey (Eds.), Current issues in computing and philosophy (pp. 50–64). Amsterdam: Ios Press.
- Champagne, M. (2011). Axiomatizing umwelt normativity. Sign Systems Studies, 39(1), 9–59.
- Krishnan, A. (2009). Killer robots: legality and ethicality of autonomous weapons. Farnham: Ashgate.
- Lin, P., Bekey, G.A., Abney, K. (2008). Autonomous military robotics: risk, ethics, and design. Report for the US Department of Defense/Office of Naval Research
- Lokhorst, G.-J., & van den Hoven, J. (2012). Responsibility for military robots. In P. Lin, G. A. Bekey, & K. Abney (Eds.), Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 145–156). Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175–183. CrossRef
- McMahan, J. (2009). Killing in war. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Petersen, S. (2012). Designing people to serve. In P. Lin, G. A. Bekey, & K. Abney (Eds.), Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 283–298). Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Singer, P. W. (2010). Wired for war: the robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. New York: Penguin.
- Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62–77. CrossRef
- Sullins, J. P. (2010). RoboWarfare: can robots be more ethical than humans on the battlefield? Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 263–275. CrossRef
- Tonkens, R. (2012). Out of character: on the creation of virtuous machines. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(2), 137–149. CrossRef
- Ullmann-Margalit, E., & Morgenbesser, S. (1977). Picking and choosing. Social Research, 44(4), 757–785.
- Velleman, J. D. (1992). Against the right to die. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 17(6), 665–681. CrossRef
- Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. New York: Basic.
- Bridging the Responsibility Gap in Automated Warfare
Philosophy & Technology
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, York University, 4th Floor, Ross Building South, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, M3J 1P3, Ontario, Canada
- 2. Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, E675 Menzies Building, Clayton VIC, Melbourne, 3800, Australia