Looking to discuss the morality of killing (have a related debate soon)

The premises of our debate is:
> The use of drones to kill 'enemy combatants' is morally permissible.

I have to argue that the use of drones to kill is not permissible.

I've decided to do that by using the argument that ALL killing is not moral unless you are in immediate danger and need to do so to save your own life. In the case of killing with a drone; the pilot/controller is not in immediate danger (thousands of miles away) and is thus not able to kill morally. I believe this this logic the premises I am arguing against no longer stands.

and

Under Kantian morality using a human as a means (their death) to an end (improved nat'l. security) it immoral as human life should always be an end and never a means.


Any thoughts/help on the issue? 5-50++ FG for good/insightful responses (must be tonight PM if you want to use AIM or skype to chat).

given your basis, i think it's pretty clear that drones shouldn't kill enemy combatants. the problem is proving your basis, which is what your entire paper is gonna be about. you'll have to explain the alternatives to war. eg when hitler invaded the world, what is the best alternative where the US doesn't fight?

imo that's a difficult stance to take. i think it would be easier to accept that killing in war is ok, but focus on problems in technology. how accurate will the weapons be, are the drones likely to malfunction, etc. go watch 24, they prolly have a lot of arguments for you to use.

This post was edited by carteblanche on Jun 15 2014 10:33pm

Sent some fg. If you'd like to expand on anything in more depth tn arguing in my favor (the use of drones being morally impermissible) I'll tip ya some more.


tyvm.

What morality are you talking about ?

If it's moral to declare war, to kill thousands of "combatants" and hundred of thousands of civilians, why would it be more or less moral to use drones for that purpose or any other weapon ?

What is the difference between drones and the use of, let's say, chemical gazes (WW1), nuclear weapons and massive bombing waves (WW2), agent orange (Vietnam war) and so on ?

According to some sense of morality, every war is immoral, since it's purpose has always been to serve a minority's interests at the cost of a majority's life or standard of living.



This is very interesting. There always are alternatives to wars.

Some of them are pretty obvious (like for the Vietnam war : why did any European or American soldier ever landed in Vietnam afterall ?).

The example of Hitler is more disturbing at first sight, since it has been taught for years that his domination on German people was kind of inevitable, hence a major war should have taken place anyhow.
But if you look closely at the past, you'll see that on many occasions during the 30's, it would have been possible (and more : easy) to prevent such kind of monster to take the lead of half Europe.

But this is more a question of historical perspective, than a philosophical question.

What level are you in?

Anyways, it does not seem to be possible to ground "an ethics" in any way.
We seem to be left to our selves to decide what is right and wrong.
There is no true difference between one man slaughtering a million people and a robot killing one man.
But maybe your opponents does not know this... They probably don't since the question put indicates that.

So this is what you should do:
Take the position which you know the best, the one which you have most knowledge of and don't switch courses.
If you take the Kantian outlook, stand by it.
Postulate the Kantian understanding of morality and defend it from there.
Your teacher wont argue with you that Kant is wrong, lol, but will rather test you knowledge of him putting it into practice.

EDIT: my knowledge of Kantian morality is limited.

This post was edited by Myhthos on Jun 16 2014 07:09am

Upper division philosophy course at fairly good Uni. Not related to my major (econ/env sci).

I make 'logical' moral justifications under both Kantian morality (categorical imperative) and under Mills' utilitarianism.

Debate got moved until next week so I have more time for data. Will post what I have in its entirety later on

Some things to think about when formulating an argument based on what you've outlined:

1. Is an offensive war morally permissible? If so, under what circumstances? Does a "just-war" exist?

2. Is it morally permissible for soldiers to kill on behalf of others' well-being? i.e. If a soldier sees a civilian in mortal danger at the hands of an enemy combatant, is it morally permissible for him to act with lethal force even though his own life is not in danger?

3. Can the State defend itself, or is self-defense the duty of individuals?

Just some ideas to think about that might help you tweak your central premise.

Whoops double post

This post was edited by PETERCOTTONTAIL on Jun 18 2014 12:17pm

I would agree, drone kills would have almost no psychological impact on the pilot, at the end of the day they leave work and go home. The psychological impact is important to argue for the morality in this debate, war leaves scars on its soldiers and with the risk of life and limb eliminated from the battlefield war would be easier to sell with this in mind.

Also in response to question #2 above use of force allows lethal force in the defense of others in the USAF so if it's on American soil. In my opinion as law enforcement morally supported. In foreign countries they have different rules of engagement I don't know much about.