Michael Skerker
United States Naval Academy
Ryan Jenkins
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
To many, the idea of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) killing human beings is grotesque. Yet critics have had difficulty explaining why it should make a significant moral difference if a human combatant is killed by an AWS as opposed to being killed by a human combatant. The purpose of this paper is to explore the roots of various deontological concerns with AWS and to consider whether these concerns are distinct from any concerns that also apply to long- distance, human-guided weaponry. We suggest that at least one major driver of the intuitive moral aversion to lethal AWS is that their use disrespects their human targets by violating the martial contract between human combatants. On our understanding of this doctrine, service personnel cede a right not to be directly targeted with lethal violence to other human agents alone. Artificial agents, of which AWS are one example, cannot understand the value of human life. A human combatant cannot transfer his privileges of targeting enemy combatants to a robot. Therefore, the human duty-holder who deploys AWS breaches the martial contract between human combatants and disrespects the targeted combatants. We consider whether this novel deontological objection to AWS forms the foundation of several other popular yet imperfect deontological objections to AWS.
Keywords killer robots  robotics  autonomous weapon systems  deontology  just war theory  military ethics  moral equality of combatants  professional ethics
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

On the Indignity of Killer Robots.Garry Young - 2021 - Ethics and Information Technology 23 (3):473-482.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reconsidering the Legal Equality of Combatants.Jovana Davidovic - 2020 - Journal of Military Ethics 18 (4):269-286.
The Moral Equality of Combatants.Barry Christian & Christie Lars - 2017 - In Seth Lazar & Helen Frowe (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Public War and the Moral Equality of Combatants.Graham Parsons - 2012 - Journal of Military Ethics 11 (4):2012.
Reconnoitering Combatant Moral Equality.Roger Wertheimer - 2007 - Journal of Military Ethics 6 (1):60-74.
Autonomous Weapons Systems, Killer Robots and Human Dignity.Amanda Sharkey - 2019 - Ethics and Information Technology 21 (2):75-87.
The Ethics of Autonomous Military Robots.Jason Borenstein - 2008 - Law and Ethics of Human Rights 2 (1).
Framing Robot Arms Control.Wendell Wallach & Colin Allen - 2013 - Ethics and Information Technology 15 (2):125-135.
Doctor of Philosophy Thesis in Military Informatics (OpenPhD ) : Lethal Autonomy of Weapons is Designed and/or Recessive.Nyagudi Nyagudi Musandu - 2016-12-09 - Dissertation, OpenPhD (#Openphd) E.G. Wikiversity Https://En.Wikiversity.Org/Wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy , Etc.
Rights, Liability, and the Moral Equality of Combatants.Uwe Steinhoff - 2012 - The Journal of Ethics 16 (4):339-366.
The Morality of Autonomous Robots.Aaron M. Johnson & Sidney Axinn - 2013 - Journal of Military Ethics 12 (2):129 - 141.


Added to PP index

Total views
358 ( #28,028 of 2,498,558 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
78 ( #9,705 of 2,498,558 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes