New Killers, New War And New Ethics - 1625 Words

Abbey-Gayle Spencer Dr. Moen PHI 110 – Intro to Western Philosophy 12 December 2015 New Killers, New War, New Ethics? â€Å"With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , (Tzu 35). Drones are the new breed of the â€Å"perfect† predators controlled by both civilian masses and military personally. They hunt, they track, and they never lose a target. As far as the world powers are concerned, Drones are a humanitarian weapon, they ensure no human cost to the perpetrator, and are precise in effecting only enemy. After several years of losing loved ones and the young of this nation, we now have a solution, but is it ethically right? Kantian ethics are one’s intentions as†¦show more content†¦If we use preference theory, Drones are good, in the aspect that they satisfy people’s preferences and is directly productive to guarantee satisfaction. Whose good are we aiming to maximize with use of Drones? From a utilitarian view point Drones are choice by the majority, making it the good for the people or as Bentham called it, â€Å"the greatest happiness for the greatest number.† Though the utilitarian method for determining what people’s interests are based on one’s well-being or the well-being of the group as a whole, utilitarian morality would reject this a criterion for determining what is morally right or wrong. Are the actions and policy made for Drones, right or wrong by their actual consequences or their foreseeable consequences? The debate on whether judgement should be based on the actual consequences or the foreseeable consequence to determine if the action is right or wrong. Using the case of a drowning man, saving him is right in the case of foreseeable consequence. But let’s say the drowning man is Adolf Hitler, had he died millions would be saved; in this case the rescuer action would be bad based the actual consequence. For foreseeable consequence it would still be determined right, because the rescuer could not predict the negative effects of saving the person from drowning. Foreseeable consequence utilitarians accept the distinction between the evolution of the action and the people who carry them. For them, what is right or wrong for person to do