OPINION
The Morality of Drone Strikes
By Phillip | 4/26/20
A small girl hula hoops next door to a house with terrorists and suicide bombers — thousands of miles a way a naive soldier sweetly smiles at her on the outskirts of the aiming imagery of his Reaper drone. This is the premise of the movie “Eye in the Sky:” should the British military strike this house and endanger civilians or risk suicide bombers detonating in a crowded public area. At least 244,000 civilians have been killed in U.S. conflicts in the middle east. Of these, at least 283 children have been killed in drone strikes.
In broad terms, the main ethical dilemma is utilitarianism vs. deontology. Utilitarianism (or Consequentialism) is the philosophy that the morally correct action is the one that provides the most good. Deontology (or Kantianism) is the philosophy that morality is determined by rules: some actions are always good or bad.
Is it morally permissible to kill one civilian in order to theoretically spare 80? In the movie, many decision makers say that it is okay to kill one civilian (or more), because the suicide bombers will (on average) kill many more than one civilian. In the U.S. military there is a system of calculating the collateral damage estimate and tallying up points to come to a decision. In the British military the process relies less on numbers which generates bureaucratic issues.
The politicians attempt to continually distance themselves from the decision and “refer up,” which suggests that using reasoning to make ethical decisions (or any decision) breaks down in real life under the paralysis of not making a wrong decision. This is also related to the morally wrong decision of willful ignorance, in which people don't want the burden of information or decision making, so hurriedly put it on someone else. Finally, when so many people have been consulted that the blame can be spread thinly among them all, the decision is made to fire.
One character explores the good or bad even more deeply than the immediate deaths: “If Al Shabab kills 80 people, we win the propaganda war. If we kill one little girl, they win the propaganda war.” This seems cold hearted, but utilitarianism dictates that all consequences should be considered, and public opinion could trigger a violent revolution or an increase in suicide bombings in retaliation.
The central question is similar to the famous philosophical trolley problem. If you haven’t heard it, the basic version is that a trolley car is going to hit five workers, however, you can flip a switch so that it hits one worker. The person closest to the act of murder is the pilot, Steve, but he is still thousands of miles away and controls life and death with a button on a computer screen.
Most people surveyed in the trolley problem experiments say that they would flip a switch (similar to a button) to kill one and save five, but would not push one person in front of the trolley car to stop it, because they felt more responsible. In the movie, we can see Steve struggling with the choice, but it would be even harder if he were there in person and had to shoot a gun or something less virtual. His anguish increases as he sees Alia's humanity: through up-close videos, her selling bread, or playing hula hoop. I wonder if the military will make people and buildings represented by dots and squares in the future in order to make the action of killing less real and create situations where enemies are gunned down as if in Call of Duty.
In the end, if you believe in deontology, not killing people is one of the categorical imperatives. The drone strike should not go through (in fact, no drone strikes should ever go through and no violence should ever be perpetuated). However, an exception is killing in self defense, and there is an argument that the drone strike, in preventing violence, would be self defense (which brings up the question of how much western nations should be interfering and continuing imperialism in the name of self defense).
If you believe in utilitarianism, the strike should go through. In this specific urgent moment, the choice between one innocent and 80 is clear: that doesn’t make it any easier. However, in the broader context, it's unclear how much good the drone strike would do: drone strikes and violence are not the best way to create lasting peace in the middle east (as we’ve seen with our endless wars), killing leaders of terrorist groups is not an effective way of defeating or pacifying the overall organization, and there will be many unforeseen consequences. Long lasting peace and good must be accomplished through diplomacy. If military force is used, it should be accompanied with careful planning.
At the very end of the movie when Alia is being rushed to the hospital by her parents, I held out hope that she would live, but she didn’t. That would rob the decision makers of the responsibility of their choice.
This movie was obviously dramatized to increase excitement. It largely lacked a more nuanced, less binary choice. In this case, I wanted to write about the moral choice, because the movie presented a dilemma that shifted my ethical opinion throughout.
In broad terms, the main ethical dilemma is utilitarianism vs. deontology. Utilitarianism (or Consequentialism) is the philosophy that the morally correct action is the one that provides the most good. Deontology (or Kantianism) is the philosophy that morality is determined by rules: some actions are always good or bad.
Is it morally permissible to kill one civilian in order to theoretically spare 80? In the movie, many decision makers say that it is okay to kill one civilian (or more), because the suicide bombers will (on average) kill many more than one civilian. In the U.S. military there is a system of calculating the collateral damage estimate and tallying up points to come to a decision. In the British military the process relies less on numbers which generates bureaucratic issues.
The politicians attempt to continually distance themselves from the decision and “refer up,” which suggests that using reasoning to make ethical decisions (or any decision) breaks down in real life under the paralysis of not making a wrong decision. This is also related to the morally wrong decision of willful ignorance, in which people don't want the burden of information or decision making, so hurriedly put it on someone else. Finally, when so many people have been consulted that the blame can be spread thinly among them all, the decision is made to fire.
One character explores the good or bad even more deeply than the immediate deaths: “If Al Shabab kills 80 people, we win the propaganda war. If we kill one little girl, they win the propaganda war.” This seems cold hearted, but utilitarianism dictates that all consequences should be considered, and public opinion could trigger a violent revolution or an increase in suicide bombings in retaliation.
The central question is similar to the famous philosophical trolley problem. If you haven’t heard it, the basic version is that a trolley car is going to hit five workers, however, you can flip a switch so that it hits one worker. The person closest to the act of murder is the pilot, Steve, but he is still thousands of miles away and controls life and death with a button on a computer screen.
Most people surveyed in the trolley problem experiments say that they would flip a switch (similar to a button) to kill one and save five, but would not push one person in front of the trolley car to stop it, because they felt more responsible. In the movie, we can see Steve struggling with the choice, but it would be even harder if he were there in person and had to shoot a gun or something less virtual. His anguish increases as he sees Alia's humanity: through up-close videos, her selling bread, or playing hula hoop. I wonder if the military will make people and buildings represented by dots and squares in the future in order to make the action of killing less real and create situations where enemies are gunned down as if in Call of Duty.
In the end, if you believe in deontology, not killing people is one of the categorical imperatives. The drone strike should not go through (in fact, no drone strikes should ever go through and no violence should ever be perpetuated). However, an exception is killing in self defense, and there is an argument that the drone strike, in preventing violence, would be self defense (which brings up the question of how much western nations should be interfering and continuing imperialism in the name of self defense).
If you believe in utilitarianism, the strike should go through. In this specific urgent moment, the choice between one innocent and 80 is clear: that doesn’t make it any easier. However, in the broader context, it's unclear how much good the drone strike would do: drone strikes and violence are not the best way to create lasting peace in the middle east (as we’ve seen with our endless wars), killing leaders of terrorist groups is not an effective way of defeating or pacifying the overall organization, and there will be many unforeseen consequences. Long lasting peace and good must be accomplished through diplomacy. If military force is used, it should be accompanied with careful planning.
At the very end of the movie when Alia is being rushed to the hospital by her parents, I held out hope that she would live, but she didn’t. That would rob the decision makers of the responsibility of their choice.
This movie was obviously dramatized to increase excitement. It largely lacked a more nuanced, less binary choice. In this case, I wanted to write about the moral choice, because the movie presented a dilemma that shifted my ethical opinion throughout.