Advertisement

Morally Responsible Decision Making in Networked Military Operations

  • Christine Boshuijzen-van BurkenEmail author
  • Bart van Bezooijen
Chapter

Abstract

Introducing responsible innovations on the battlefield requires a rethinking of social and psychological aspects of moral decision making on the battlefield, and in particular, including how these aspects are influenced by technology. In this chapter, the social aspects of moral decision making are accounted for in terms of the normative practices in which soldiers do their jobs. Soldiers on the battlefield are embedded in a very specific structure, and are expected to act according to rules, norms and procedures. Their actions are inspired by a certain worldview, which influences the way in which the rules, norms and procedures are interpreted. Technology, especially ICT, connects different practices on the battlefield, thereby creating a network of different (sub-)practices. This may cause a blurring or clashing of different normative practices, which affects moral decision making. In this chapter, Remotely Piloted Aircrafts (RPAs) are used as a case in point for technologically mediated moral decision making. The normative practice model gives insights in the social aspect of decision making in networked missions, but it does not pay attention to the role of the individual soldier in an in-depth way. Therefore an addition is needed, which focusses on the individual soldiers themselves. For the individual level, we take the psychological component of moral decision making and explain how this aspect is affected by technology. The model of normative practices is thus informed by insights from empirical psychology. Moral psychologists have empirically investigated how certain cues influence moral decision making. Some of the cues can be effectuated through technology. Social cognitive theory, as developed by Bandura (Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1986), (Personality and Social Psychology Review 3(3):193–209, 1999) and moral intensity theory developed by Jones (Academy of Management Review 16(2):366–395, 1991) are theories that explain moral decision making mechanisms in terms of respectively moral (dis)engagement mechanisms and the perceived moral intensity of a situation. From both theories we infer how visual data sharing technologies can increase or decrease morally appropriate decision making in networked enabled operations.

Keywords

Moral decision making Normative practices Network enabled operations Remotely piloted aircrafts (RPAs) Social cognitive theory Moral intensity theory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article was written by the authors as part of the research program ‘Moral fitness of military personnel in a networked operation environment’, which is supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) under grant number 313-99-110.

References

  1. Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, Albert. 1991. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Handbook of moral behavior and development, ed. W.M. Kurtines, and J. Gewirtz, 45–103. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, Albert. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3(3): 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgmann, Albert. 1984. Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bumiller, Elisabeth. 2012. A day job waiting for a kill shot a world away. The New York Times, 29 July 2012.Google Scholar
  6. Corcoran, Mark. 2012. The kill chain: Australia’s Drone War. Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) News, 27 June 2012.Google Scholar
  7. Crilly, Rob. 2013. Prince Harry ‘Driving Wedge between forces and Afghan locals’. The Telegraph, 22 Jan 2013.Google Scholar
  8. Engel, Richard. 2013. Former Drone operator says he’s haunted by his part in more than 1,600 deaths. NBC News, 17 June 2013.Google Scholar
  9. Fitzsimmons, Scott, and Karina Sangha. 2013. Killing in high definition. San Francisco, International Studies Association Annual Convention, 3rd–6th April 2013.Google Scholar
  10. Fukuyama, Francis. 1995. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Groetken, Steven. 2010. Military operations half a world away: The 24 hour use of unmanned vehicles controlled from remote locations. University of Arizona. http://next.eller.arizona.edu/courses/24hourKnowledgefactory/Spring2010/student_papers/StevenGroetkin.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2013.
  12. Grossman, Dave. 2009. On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society, Rev. ed. New York: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  13. Jochemsen, Henk. 2006. Normative practices and theoretical ethics and morality. Philosophia Reformata 71(1): 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jochemsen, H., and G. Glas. 1997. Verantwoord Medisch Handelen. Proeve Van Een Christelijke Medische Ethiek. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, T.M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review 16(2): 366–395.Google Scholar
  16. Kish-Gephart, Jennifer J., David A. Harrison, and Linda Klebe Treviño. 2010. Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1969. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. New York: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  18. Kroes, P.A., and A.W.M. Meijers. 2000. The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology, vol 20. Jai.Google Scholar
  19. Laster, Jill, and Ben Iannotta. 2012. Learning from fratricide-US deaths in Sangin valley bring long-sought tactical intel changes. C4ISR-Journal of Net-Centric Warfare 11(2): 24–27.Google Scholar
  20. McMahon, J.M., and R.J. Harvey. 2006. An analysis of the factor structure of Jones’ moral intensity construct. Journal of Business Ethics 64(4): 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milgram, Stanley. 1974. Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  22. Rest, James R. 1979. Development in judging moral issues. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rest, James R. 1986. Moral development: Advances in theory and research. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  24. Richardson, Rudy, Desiree Verweij, and Donna Winslow. 2004. Moral fitness for peace operations. Journal of Political and Military Sociology 32(1): 99–113.Google Scholar
  25. Royakkers, Lamber, and Rinie van Est. 2010. The cubicle warrior: The marionette of digitalized warfare. Ethics and Information Technology 12(3): 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schogol, Jeff, and Markeshia Ricks. 2012. Demand grows for UAV pilots, sensor operators. Air force Times, 12 April 2012.Google Scholar
  27. Sripada, C.S., and S. Stich. 2006. A framework for the psychology of norms. In The innate mind: Culture and cognition, ed. P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, and S. Stich, 280–301. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. The Canadian Press. 2013. Turning video gamers into the ultimate drone pilots. Researchers find that distractions boost performance. CBC News, 9 May 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Van Burken, Christine G., and Marc J. De Vries. 2012. Extending the theory of normative practices: An application to two cases of networked military operations. Philosophia Reformata 77(2): 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Walker, Andrew. 2010. 1N0 Mission Intel Coordinator. United States Air Force Intelligence. USAF.IN > 1N0X1 > 1N0 Mission Intel Coordinator ed. 29 July 2010. http://usaf.in/viewtopic.php?id=117. Accessed 23 August 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Boshuijzen-van Burken
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bart van Bezooijen
    • 1
  1. 1.Philosophy and Ethics, School of Innovation SciencesEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations