I'll post the guidelines in here as well.
READ THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY
You are the President of the United States. You have invited Aristotle, Kant, Mill, and Ruddick to help you analyze the ethical dimensions of the use Remotely Powered Aircraft--commonly called "DRONES"-- for war operations (such as attempts to kill terrorists and other enemy combatants overtly or covertly). You are not asking these moral philosophers to determine what is the best military strategy in a particular case; rather, you want them to tell you whether or not there are significant MORAL concerns in using this particular kind of method of warfare, and what those concerns are. If the moral concerns are serious enough, you might ask the Secretary of Defense to introduce a military policy that minimizes or eliminates the use of drones, even if their use would sometimes be strategically advantageous.
Aristotle, Kant, Mill, and Ruddick are briefed on various facts and ongoing ethical debates about drone warfare, its advantages and disadvantages from a military, psychological, and technological perspective. Each philosopher is asked to apply their own core fundamental values and ethical procedures to examining the issue and to put in their two cents on it. Given each thinker's acumen, their "two cents" will carry quite a lot of weight. Each philosopher makes a short presentation to you, Madam or Mr. President, and YOU must draw some provisional conclusions about the policy direction you want to go in, given the four different moral approaches to the issue. Is a policy of using drones something you want to pursue more vigorously, given how their use compares to other means of war? Or is it something that you want to step away from?
Your assignment is to produce the "TRANSCRIPT" of your (the president's) meeting with the philosophers, along with your "presidential" ethical conclusions. The paper you produce should be approximately 10 pages, double spaced, 1 " margins, 11 or 12 point font. You should (a) watch (or read transcript of) the 45 minute PBS NOVA program "Rise of the Drones" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html and (b) listen to (or read transcript of) the 35 minute interview between Terry Gross and P. W. Singer -
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99663723 ) In addition to these two sources, you should read TWO of the sources from the list I've provided (you may review more, if you want, but don't overwhelm yourself). Gleaning what facts you can (many are opinion pieces highlighting different ethical issues, but all do provide some factual information), apply each of the four philosophical-ethical perspectives to the issue of drone warfare. Your paper should use citations where appropriate. You do not need to cite the textbook. You must list the two chosen references.
Your aim is to DEMONSTRATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MORAL REASONING that is utilized by each of the four ethical approaches, by applying their reasoning to the specific issue of drone warfare. (Your aim is NOT to become an expert on drone warfare, or to resolve complex problems of military ethics.)
So, in summary. Produce a 10-12 page paper with the following main features, (as a rule of thumb, try to make each section 2 pages long):
I. Aristotle's informed moral judgment about some aspect of drone warfare.
II. Kant's " "
III. Mill's " "
IV. Ruddick's " "
V. The President's (your own) "take-away" after listening to the thoughts of the philosophers
You are welcome to approach this paper creatively -- the views can be presented in the form of dialogue, as you might see in a transcript or a play. You are equally welcome to offer a traditional paper that does not use different "voices." However you choose to approach it, the important thing is to demonstrate your learning and understanding of the concepts and methods of moral reasoning that we've studied.
ALL THE SOURCE MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE AS LINKS BELOW, AND WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE ON BLACKBOARD IN THE DOCUMENTS FOLDER, IN A FOLDER CALLED "FINAL TAKEHOME TEST").
ADVICE and TIPS:
In order to demonstrate your understanding of the moral reasoning of these four ethical approaches, and of moral reasoning in general, you will need to make reasoned statements and arguments that are patterned after the philosopher's approach to moral issues. Ask yourself these questions:
a. If I were ______ (Aristotle, Kant, Mill, or Ruddick), what would stand out most to me about drone warfare? Why?
b. Given this fact, issue, aspect of drone warfare that concerns me, if I was _________, what METHOD would I use to evaluate the issue or to give it deeper or more careful consideration?
c. Given this method of moral evaluation, if I were ___________, what would I conclude about the moral acceptability of drone warfare?
d. Not being an expert in these matters, are there any basic changes that seem plausible that would reduce or eliminate my moral worries (if I've concluded that drones raise serious special moral concerns) / or increase them (If I've concluded that drone warfare is morally superior to other types of warfare)?
Your paper should demonstrate your familiarity with basic concepts of moral reasoning, in addition to familiarity with the specific theories. This means that you should point out the difference between, for example, a factual premise, a moral premise, and a judgment. You should show that you understand the difference between different types of values and prescriptions, such as a prudential prescriptive claim and a legal prescriptive claim, versus one that is moral. You may choose to demonstrate this using footnotes if you are not sure that your main text makes this understanding evident. So, for example, at the end of each of the four sections corresponding to each philosopher you could provide a footnote that briefly explains the "formal" breakdown of their reasoning. (What premises do they put together to yield their conclusions about drone warfare? Is one of their premises a fundamental principle or value? Is that fundamental principle or value moral or non-moral?)
You may also use footnotes to discuss, from your own point of view, ambiguities or difficulties that you think there are in applying a specific philosophical perspective to the question of drone warfare.
Your final section (V--see above)--in which you make the "presidential" conclusion--should be a thoughtful and sincere attempt to integrate the four moral approaches, or to explain why one or more (or all) will be rejected by you in making your policy determination. Remember, you are trying to get a "big" picture of the ethical issues that can help you weigh your policy options. It is therefore not acceptable in the closing paragraphs to claim that you cannot come to any conclusions because it all depends on the specific situation. You can at least draw some conclusions about whether, as president, you are going to have a pro- or con- attitude toward this type of warfare and to explain how your attitude reflects (or departs from) the four philosophical approaches.
BELOW ARE THE SOURCES
Sources
REQUIRED: RADIO INTERVIEW/TRANSCRIPT 2009 "The Ethical, Psychological Effects of Robotic Wars" Interview between Terry Gross and P. W. Singer (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113996743) This program focuses on ethical issues.
REQUIRED: NOVA, "Rise of the Drones" 2013 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html) This program focuses on the technology, but provides helpful contextual information.
Choose two from the following:
1. ARTICLE "Drone Operators: Soldiers or Civilians?" by Aroop Mukharji (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/drone-operators-soldiers-or-civilians/274447/)
2. ARTICLE "Drone pilots: Why war is also hard for remote soldiers" by Anna Mulrine (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0228/Drone-pilots-Why-war-is-also-hard-for-remote-soldiers)
3. ARTICLE "America, Drones, and the Future of Combat" by Gabriel Rosen (http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/america-drones-and-the-future-of-combat/)
4. ARTICLE "Drone victim: U.S. strikes boost al-Qaida recruitment" by Wajahat Ali (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/drone_victim_u_s_strikes_boost_al_qaeda_recruitment/)
5. ARTICLE "Drones and the man" (The Economist) (http://www.economist.com/node/21524876)
6. ARTICLE/BLOG "Remotely Operated Air Power: Implications for Ethics, Policy and Strategy" by Lt. Gen David A. Deptula, USAF (Retd) (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-EMEAC-2013-01.html)
7. ARTICLE "Drones Save Lives" by Douglas Murray (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578346183175781810.html)
8. ARTICLE "U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Linked to Rise in Depression, Anxiety, Mental Health Issues" by Guillaume Lavallee (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/pakistan-drone-strikes-depression-anxiety_n_3033086.html)
9. ARTICLE "'Every Person is Afraid of the Drones': The Strikes' Effect on Life in Pakistan" by Conor Friedersdorf (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/every-person-is-afraid-of-the-drones-the-strikes-effect-on-life-in-pakistan/262814/)
10. ARTICLE "Reflections on Drones" Part I and II (Huffington Post) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-jay-lifton/10-reflections-drones_b_3062566.html)