Algorithms doing ethics work

In a Wired Magazine interview with the Israeli Air Force they report the following:

 the notion of “mathematical formulas that solve even the difficult ethical dilemmas in place of human pilots.” The air force has been developing technologies for quite some time now that can divert missiles in midair if all of a sudden a civilian pops up near the target, but often this kind of thing happens too quickly even for the most skilled operators. It’s part of an uneven, decade-long IAF effort to try to bring down collateral damage — a necessity, since the air force fights asymmetric enemies in densely populated areas. But this is something the IAF is keen to develop even more. The concept of a computer taking over almost all the functions of this kind of thing is very tricky, though; you can’t very well say at a war crimes tribunal that you’re not responsible for unintended deaths, or tell the judge it was all the algorithm’s fault.

Whereas  philosophers have time to think about ethical scenarios, professionals who have to make ethically responsible decisions are generally forced to utilize an algorithm. In any case, algorithms are far better at getting certain kinds of things right than humans are, and  assessments of damage are probably one of them, or could be made to be one of them. So one would think that this is a very positive step. Assuming no weapon is immune from being used to create collateral damage (or anything that fall under "double effect") an algorithm designed to minimize that would be worth developing. In cases like this, an algorithm will not be responsible for unintended deaths, they will be responsible for all the deaths that did not occur.

More interestingly is as follows. It is likely easy to be a utilitarian here. The goal of an algorithm can be to reduce collateral casualties. But what else could an "ethics algorithm" be made to do? It could be made to weigh the possibility of a certain amount of injury and damage against a certain amount of death. It might be able to weigh the ethical repercussions of destroying certain targets against the mission ends. This would force philosophers to really think about what "proportionality" means. It might be able to weigh one type of collateral damage against another (say, hitting a full school or a half-full medical center.) What else should such an algorithm try to do?

Thoughts?

New Articles on Ethics of War

If you have access to Philosophy Compass (a journal I heartily recommend) you should look at two recent articles by Endre Begby, Gregory M. Reichberg, and Henrik Syse. It is actually a two part article first on the history of the ethics of war, and the second part on contemporary issues. The first part is a very good, though quite terse history of just war thinkers from Heraclitus to Walzer. It is a great place to start if you want to explore the history of just war theory in the West. The second article focuses on more contemporary debates in each area of classical just war theory, as well as the more recent discussion of jus post bellum.

Some of you know that I think a lot of contemporary just war theory sounds really old fashioned and needs to be updated in light of the evolved ontological nature modern politics, warfare, and warriors, as well as concepts like moral and military asymmetries and the distinction between aggressor and aggresse. The article presents a good overview of what people are talking about today and makes considerable strides toward understanding which questions are still relevant, and how. Both are worth reading. 

Interesting application of game theory

The Economist has an interesting article on some of the successes in game theoretic models.  Toward the end there is a suggestion:

The “principle of convergence”, as it is known, holds that armed conflict is, in essence, an information-gathering exercise. Belligerents fight to determine the military strength and political resolve of their opponents; when all sides have “converged” on accurate and identical assessments, a surrender or peace deal can be hammered out. Each belligerent has a strong motivation to hit the enemy hard to show that it values victory very highly. Such a model might be said to reflect poorly on human nature. But some game theorists believe that the model could be harnessed to make diplomatic negotiations a more viable substitute for armed conflict.
Today’s game-theory software is not yet sufficiently advanced to mediate between warring countries. But one day opponents on the brink of war might be tempted to use it to exchange information without having to kill and die for it. They could learn how a war would turn out, skip the fighting and strike a deal . . .

This is an interesting model of war. What it essentially suggests is that if an army is tough enough and has a strong enough resolve to go through with its threats, it can win a war without actually doing it. But while there won't be wars, there will still be a need for a powerful military and military spending. It makes for interesting food for thought. What would war look like if this plan was actually implemented? Does this suggestion make sense?

I suspect that many Neocon thinkers would think this is strange because they tend to think that wars will almost always involve at least one dictator who has little interest in preserving the lives of his people and would rather risk actual fighting than a bloodless surrender, even if it really seems to be inevitable. A political Realist, on the other hand would probably take this to be an idea way to get things done, but I can see reservations there as well. A political Constructivist is probably wondering of this kind of mediation isn't already the role of the UN.

What do you think?

Drone ethics conference

This conference, seems like it has the potential to be interesting. It is oddly mostly free of both academics and military people and is largely being billed as an event with a political agenda. Both of those facts have the potential to undermine serious analysis. 

Superiors and subordinates

The question of trust in one's superiors has come up lately in the comments (by EOD CPT). I think that it is a question of serious ethical and practical significance in the military. It is so important because there are historically great rivalries between officers and NCOs, NCOs and privates, etc.

Legend has it that the position of "attention" and the position of "parade rest" that one stands in when addressing officers and senior NCOs respectively were instituted in ancient Rome as a way to make the superior feel comfortable in the knowledge that his subordinates will not attack him. If the superior saw that a soldier near him was not standing properly rigidly, he would get nervous and was allowed to strike the subordinate.

Now, in most countries these are vestigial traditions. But the animosity between superiors and subordinates persists. It is only under the best of leaders that one finds soldiers who really want to be working for him. The rest are just not in a position to walk away.

I don't have much to say about the whole issue at the moment, but Samir Chopra has a post that is interesting and along these lines. He mentions that in many of the interviews he has conducted with veterans for his work on the history of air power in India, it is the stories about dealing with superiors that sometimes are told with more verve and detail than the stories about standing up to the enemy. When people advise their children against joining the military, it is often because they don't want to put their children through the same experiences with military superiors that they did.

I've mentioned the Army Center for Leaderhip's survey and technical report last year on military leadership and the revelation that came out about how many soldiers thought there was "toxic leadership" in their units.  The Army's Combined Arms Center had a post on this too a few months back. This is something that definitely needs to be looked at closer.

At the intersection . . .

. . . of military ethics and computer/business ethics is this question: why is the lowest quality computer software produced for the government?

At the intersection . . .

. . . of animal ethics and military ethics, I submit this article.

Book Review

Seumas Miller reviews Frances Kamm's new book Ethics for Enemies: Terror, Torture, and War and here is some commentary about the study of such things.  

TED Talks on morality and non-lethal weapons

ISME Participant and military ethicist Stephen Coleman gives a nice TED talk about non-lethal weapons.

Interestingly, he spends a bit of time addressing the distinction between police officers and soldiers,  nicely talked about by Douglas Lackey in Iyyun a few years ago.

Another TED talk by Peter van Uhm - the Netherlands' Chief of Defense talks about the state monopoly on the use of force.

Some ethics questions from the news

Woah. Intersting. I wonder what ethicists will have to say about self-guided bullets.

Another question: Should medivac helicopters be armed?

What is the best military-wide response to ethics/war crimes/LOAC violations? Can Neuroscience shed light on the situation? (I'm not too sure.)

And speaking of neuroscience, what ethical strictures and oversight is needed over the military's use of neuroscience? How about when DARPA tests a way to zap a brain into quickly train snipers.

(Continuing from this post) I assume that the question of the ethics of remote killing via drone and other devices will not go away, though it is already being discussed and I think that there are anthologies coming out discussing this too. See here, here, here, and here for the issue in the news. And while we are on the topic, there are plenty of robots in use in militaries. See here for example.

UPDATE: Apparently there is a whole mailing list dedicated to drones. Also, it looks like the question about arming MEDIVAC helicopters is seriously being considered.