Autonomous weapons systems, killer robots and human dignity

Abstract

One of the several reasons given in calls for the prohibition of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) is that they are against human dignity (Asaro in Int Rev Red Cross 94(886):687-709, 2012; Docherty in Shaking the foundations: the human rights implications of killer robots, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2014; Heyns in S Afr J Hum Rights 33(1):46-71, 2017; Ulgen in Human dignity in an age of autonomous weapons: are we in danger of losing an 'elementary consideration of humanity'? 2016). However there have been criticisms of the reliance on human dignity in arguments against AWS (Birnbacher in Autonomous weapons systems: law, ethics, policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016; Pop in Autonomous weapons systems: a threat to human dignity? 2018; Saxton in (Un)dignified killer robots? The problem with the human dignity argument, 2016). This paper critically examines the relationship between human dignity and AWS. Three main types of objection to AWS are identified; (i) arguments based on technology and the ability of AWS to conform to international humanitarian law; (ii) deontological arguments based on the need for human judgement and meaningful human control, including arguments based on human dignity; (iii) consequentialist reasons about their effects on global stability and the likelihood of going to war. An account is provided of the claims made about human dignity and AWS, of the criticisms of these claims, and of the several meanings of 'dignity'. It is concluded that although there are several ways in which AWS can be said to be against human dignity, they are not unique in this respect. There are other weapons, and other technologies, that also compromise human dignity. Given this, and the ambiguities inherent in the concept, it is wiser to draw on several types of objections in arguments against AWS, and not to rely exclusively on human dignity.

Prohibiting Autonomous Weapons: Put Human Dignity First

“…After all, while the suggestion to rest the case against LAWS more firmly on human dignity has drawn some scrutiny itself (see the overview in Sharkey, 2018), the supposed 'awkwardness' (Baker, 2018) of this proposal is commonly substantiated by pointing out that several meanings of dignity exist and that there is no agreedupon definition of dignity. After all, while the suggestion to rest the case against LAWS more firmly on human dignity has drawn some scrutiny itself (see the overview in Sharkey, 2018), the supposed 'awkwardness' (Baker, 2018) of this proposal is commonly substantiated by pointing out that several meanings of dignity exist and that there is no agreedupon definition of dignity.…”

“…From a strategic communication point of view, adjusting the message toward the infringement on human dignity would have the general benefit of dampening the overall level of contention. After all, while the suggestion to rest the case against LAWS more firmly on human dignity has drawn some scrutiny itself (see the overview in Sharkey, 2018), the supposed 'awkwardness' (Baker, 2018) of this proposal is commonly substantiated by pointing out that several meanings of dignity exist and that there is no agreedupon definition of dignity. Yet, being vague but relevant and even crucially important is a characteristic of many normative and even legally codified concepts.…”

A Taxonomy of Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Wearable Robots: An Expert Perspective

“…COST ( 2019 ) states “any funding of activities related to sensitive technology development, armament or defence-oriented research should be avoided” (p. 3), so no exploration was conducted into how WRs may fit into existing ethical frameworks for military robots (e.g. Amoroso and Tamburrini 2018 ; Lucas 2014 ; Sharkey 2019 ; Sparrow 2016 ).…”

How (not) to stop the killer robots: A comparative analysis of humanitarian disarmament campaign strategies

“…Analyses of the various ethical, legal, political, and technical implications of LAWS, as well as on their potential impact on peace and stability, are rapidly expanding (see e.g., Altmann & Sauer, 2017;Asaro, 2019;Scharre, 2018;Sharkey, 2012Sharkey, , 2019. While others study the construction and contestation of the emerging normative framework through individual states or regional groups (Barbé & Badell, 2019;Bode, 2019), the normative impact of practices related to the development and operation of autonomy in weapons (Bode & Huelss, 2018), or the very appearance of the LAWS issue on the transnational and international agenda (Carpenter, 2014), we analyze the norm-setting efforts by the KRC.…”