Autonomous Weapons and Ethical Responsibility
It might be time for the military to celebrate as new automated weapons and robots are invented. This has raised many ethical and safety issues for the public. This has raised questions regarding the differences between human-controlled weapons and automated weapons. Although both types of weapons can be destructive, people seem to fear automated weapons more than human-controlled weapons (U.S. Department of Defense, 2023).
Human Control Compassion and Lethality
It might be because the human factor and compassion are subtracted from the equation. However, many argue humans using weapons can be as lethal as the robots on the battlefield or if they intend to harm someone. Regardless, people deem killer robots more dangerous than human-operated weapons because they operate automatically. Conversely, Michael Robillard argues in “The Killer Robots Are Us” that humans control the programming and the whole process; they make the strategy; therefore, banning automated weapons would not assist in creating peace. Moreover, he claims that such assumptions put the blame on the robots and remove the blame from the humans who created them and programmed their intentions into them. Although Robillard correctly draws attention to the programmers who have created the robots or automated weapons, he assumes the robots and the institutions are functionally identical. In addition, the robots can complete the task following deontological principles. However, it is a fallacy to equate the moral values of humans and robots and to assume that people will use the killer robots for the same purpose in the military as the developers intended. Moreover, he argues that robots manifest the interests of institutions; therefore, the institutions must be blamed for human rights violations, not the robots (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, n.d.).
Programming Institutional Intentions and Blame
Robillard is rightly arguing that humans have developed robots, and they represent plans and military strategies of the countries where they are made. The programmers encode the strategies and intentions of the military institutes to make those robots. Therefore, the robots, whatever they do, represent the intentions of the institutions and the strategies of the people who have programmed them. Therefore, the robots cannot be deemed ethical or unethical. They are doing what they are programmed to do, and they are more efficient than humans in fighting wars and saving the lives of army personnel. The robots do not have the agency to decide whether to fight a war or not, but when they are put to work, they do their jobs without considering the consequences or intentions. The robots complete their tasks like a person with a deontological approach, without concerning themselves with the intentions or consequences and following orders without fear of the consequences. Thus, his argument infers that the robots complete the task the way they are programmed. They do not alter or change the strategies nor consider the consequences of their actions because they are made that way. They cannot decide or change their plans. The automated codes in the program are the only commands they follow, yet people are scared of them and consider the robots evil and a way to end the world. In reality, the people who have programmed them must bear the criticism, but the current focus on banning robots and automated weapons discusses the fatality of the robots, ignoring the human contribution to it.
Limits of Focusing Only on Automation
The ban focuses on the automated features of robots and automated weapons and not on the programs that institutions have intentionally put in place to destroy their enemy. Therefore, he argues that the whole debate on the ban is useless because it is wrong to use automated machines to inflict terror or kill the enemy. The use of a weapon by the people to kill the enemy must also be wrong, as both techniques aim at killing the people. There is no reason that humans killing other humans using non-automated weapons is justified, but the same action by automated weapons is criticized as cruel and unethical. Consequently, humans must change their strategies of war, and everyone must contribute to it instead of banning the robots, which are a mere manifestation of human planning and war strategies.
Ethical Differences Between Humans and Machines
Although the author likely argues that humans are involved in the programming of robots, it is a fallacy to equate their potential and ethics. The automated machines are focused only on the commands that have been written into the program regardless of the situation that might occur at the time of war or conflict, whereas weapons with human operators are easier to control than robots, which follow instructions written in front of a computer using earlier data. The use of automated machines and robots cannot account for the situation, as it might harm people rather than serve them. Consequently, comparing human skills with automated computer skills is a fallacy. It might make sense at first glance that the actions of humans and automated machines might be similar in the situation of war. It does not mean that they are similar or the same as the author assumes. The pre-written orders might not serve the purpose of the war situation. Although they might be efficient in killing and targeting the target, that might be the problem because killing is not always required. For instance, a person may set a timer to take a picture on her phone, but at the last moment, the person may sneeze and ruin the picture. The use of automated machines presents a similar problem, as they cannot be stopped or interrupted once they begin. In the case of a camera photo, a person can delete and retake the photo, but damage to human life cannot be retrieved. Hence, equating automated weapons with human-controlled weapons is problematic because a person can stop after firing two or three bullets, but automated robots may be unstoppable. Due to this, automated weapons have different ethical implications than non-automated weapons (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2021).
Uncertain Use of Autonomous Weapons
The second fallacy in his argument is that he assumes that because programmers and military strategists intended to create a military weapon for use in war, it will be used according to their plans. Automated weapons were made by strategists and the military to be used in war situations, but in reality, automated weapons can be used in society to threaten people’s security if they fall into the wrong hands. It is problematic to assume that automated weapons will be used only in warfare and that people with bad intentions or terrorists will not use them simply because programmers made them for military use. Although the automated weapons are intended to be used by the military and the programmers have set them accordingly, it cannot be ensured that everyone would care about the intentions of the programmers. Therefore, legitimizing automated weapons because humans made them is not a valid argument to justify the deadly killer robots.
Human Rights and Military Utility
Furthermore, the author’s argument about the intentions of the programmers and the institution is wrong and violates the rights of humans, not automated machines. Automated machines and killer robots might be useful in situations of war, as suggested by the op-ed, but they have serious human rights issues. Wars are especially infamous for the human rights violations and atrocities that they cause to people residing in countries in conflict. The automated killer robots increase the intensity of the human rights violations. The automated machines might not have the agency to decide, and the humans might be blamed for developing the killer robots, but such confessions do not reduce the levels of human rights abuse that such technology causes. It might not blame the machines for human rights violations or for the actions and intentions of humans, but it does not ignore the fact that people are killed and tortured. Moreover, the technology of the robots has enhanced the intensity of the violence, making it efficient because if the target is selected, these robots do not make mistakes. They kill the target with accuracy, due to which the technology scares people because the technology is efficient and human intervention is removed from the equation.
Conclusion on Responsibility for Killer Robots
To conclude, the author, Michael Robillard, in his opinion article, “The Killer Robots Are Us,” argues that as killer robots and automated weapons are made by humans, they represent human and institutional intentions to kill. Therefore, by banning automated weapons, people are trying to blame the weapons for the violence and human rights abuses, but they manifest the intentions of the developers. Although the author is right in arguing that robots represent human intentions and are intended for use in a state of war, some people can use them in non-war times. Moreover, the automated weapons do not allow humans to intervene when the target is selected, which increases the intensity of the violence. They increase the intensity of violence at a time when violence is already prominent, creating more problems than solving any. Hence, they should be banned.
References
U.S. Department of Defense. (2023). Directive 3000.09: Autonomy in weapon systems. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/300009p.pdf
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2021). ICRC position on autonomous weapon systems. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-position-autonomous-weapon-systems
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
