Lethal autonomous weapons systems : a case study in the ethics of artificial intelligence and lethal decision-making

The focus of this research dissertation is on the ethics of using artificial intelligence-based decision-making in a military capacity. For reasons of scope management it will focus primarily on the development and use of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). The argument is split into three sections. The first is a discussion of the context of the debate. It includes a ‘State of the Art’ review exploring the contemporary position of artificial decision-making systems and a discussion of military ethics focusing on the debate between Revisionist and Traditionalist Just War Theory scholars. This introduces as a key idea in this study the notion of ‘military necessity’: to minimise the death and suffering caused by war wherever possible. The second section focuses on the principles of distinction and proportionality and their applicability to LAWS. It is argued that these do not provide a sufficient argument for a blanket prohibition of the technology. This discussion will find such arguments to be lacking and ultimately unsuccessful, instead producing an account of the capacity lethal autonomous weapons systems have in aiding the mission of ‘military necessity’. Finally, once it has been established that lethal autonomous weapons systems can be used to promote ethics in military combat, it will be argued that some form of regulation is nonetheless required to maintain meaningful experiences and relationships between humans and the conduct that is regarded as permissible but regrettable in a war. There is no need to implement lethal autonomous weapons systems in an unlimited fashion, and doing so will only compromise their usefulness and disregard their inherent limits. It is the contribution, therefore, of this dissertation that while the use of lethal autonomous weapons systems is not inherently unethical their current decision making capabilities are limited as they pertain to the lack of a human experience that typically characterizes ethics. It is prudent, therefore, that LAWS are regulated in accordance with these limitations.

Name dc:type.qualificationname

MA

Level dc:type.qualificationlevel

Masters

Grantor dc:publisher.institution

Oxford Brookes University

Author dc:creator

• Crowther, Simone

Advisor dc:contributor.advisor

• Boulter, Stephen

DOI dc:identifier.doi

https://doi.org/10.24384/1n9x-rq28

OAI record oai:identifier

https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/oai?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=uketd_dc&identifier=tle%3A8d1eef51-3c15-44b6-bb16-ab15dd33a76b%3Ad6bd9758-527a-46cd-bfe2-c433766e8fca%3A1