Published on 10/20/21
In an era marked by rapid technological advancements, the role of artificial intelligence has expanded into various domains, including warfare. The development and deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs), often referred to as "killer robots," has emerged as a controversial and complex issue. These machine-learning algorithmic systems are designed to select and engage targets with minimal human intervention. While proponents argue that LAWs could reduce soldier casualties and enhance precision in combat, their proliferation in recent years raises significant concerns about human safety and ethical implications.
A Harrowing Crisis
The use of autonomous drones equipped with lethal capabilities has resulted in the loss of innocent lives in regions such as Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan, where these machines have been deployed for military operations. The remarkable lethality of LAWs can be attributed to several key features, one of which is their minimal requirement for human presence on the battlefield. These systems can be operated remotely, reducing the need for traditional soldiers and diminishing the risks associated with human engagement in combat.
Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of LAWs has the potential to lower the barriers to conflict escalation. The ability to deploy these weapons from a distance, using remote-control technologies and GPS tracking, has led to reduced operational costs in military campaigns. This affordability, in turn, increases the likelihood of armed conflicts.
For instance, the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflicts have spurred the United States to intensify the development of autonomous drone swarms and test-fire a prototype super cannon, capable of striking targets up to 1,000 miles away. The effectiveness of drone swarms poses a unique threat to a nation's nuclear capabilities during warfare. This increased reliance on LAWs has raised concerns of a new era of warfare marked by unprecedented dangers and potential global conflict.
Moreover, the artificial intelligence that powers LAWs introduces a troubling dimension to their use. These systems are vulnerable to cyberattacks and hacking, which could result in unintended consequences, such as turning the weapons against their own operators. In a world where cyberattacks occur every 39 seconds, the high-profile targets often include governmental organizations and technology companies, precisely the entities responsible for developing LAWs.
When algorithms are employed in weaponry, particularly in situations involving life-and-death decisions, the risk of unintended consequences and catastrophic events rises significantly. This potential for misuse and the negative impacts associated with the continued development of autonomous weapons demand careful consideration.
The Reluctance to Ban Killer Robots
The United Nations has advocated for a ban on the development and use of LAWs for over five years, yet the level of international support for such a ban remains insufficient. Major global powers leading the development of LAWs have been notably reluctant to sign binding agreements to regulate these technologies. For example, Russia has explicitly expressed its unwillingness to accept international restrictions on the use of killer robots, citing national security interests as a driving force. The United States, under the Biden Administration, has also declined to sign any binding international treaties to limit LAWs.
These stances by powerful nations indicate a prevailing belief in the necessity of advancing the development of killer robots, despite the potential threats they pose to individual safety and international stability. The resistance to international regulation and oversight of LAWs reflects a troubling trend where nations prioritize military advantages over the risks of uncontrollable, lethal technology.
Even if a ban were imposed on killer robots, the likelihood of covert development by nations opposed to the ban would persist. This secrecy would result in more unpredictable and potentially more destructive LAWs. The absence of transparency increases the risks associated with these autonomous weapons, as their quality and safety may be compromised.
Addressing the Uncontrolled Development of LAWs
To mitigate the uncontrolled development of LAWs and the potential consequences that could lead to significant loss of life, decisive action is required. Although it may seem daunting, it is not too late to establish limits on the proliferation of killer robots.
In cases where restrictions can be enforced, slowing down the replacement of humans on the battlefield is vital. Maintaining the principle of mutually assured destruction and deterrence between nations can help minimize harm to individuals. The objective should be to ensure that technology and automation do not outpace the capacity to make ethical and responsible decisions.
In situations where the continuous development of LAWs appears inevitable, it is essential to focus on minimizing accuracy issues, safety hazards, and cyber risks. These efforts can help reduce casualties compared to the status quo, as well as mitigate the potential for catastrophic unintended consequences.
Ultimately, the goal should be to "cage" these killer robots, not "make" them. The uncontrolled development and deployment of LAWs must be addressed comprehensively, as the risks they pose are too grave to ignore.
The Elusive Pursuit of Justice in Law
"Of all the things of a man's soul which he has within him, justice is the greatest good and injustice the greatest evil." These words, articulated by Plato in The Republic, continue to resonate in contemporary society. When an apparently unjust legal decision riles the public, questions about the relationship between justice and law emerge. This essay argues that while law can approach justice, it can never truly attain it. The moral and ethical nuances inherent to each period and culture act as barriers preventing the law from achieving perfect justice.
In order to make this argument, we first need to define the terms "law" and "justice" by drawing upon various philosophical perspectives. We will then explore pivotal legal cases from history to demonstrate how the law continually evolves in pursuit of greater justice. Ultimately, we will assert that a gap always exists between law, which is practical and context-dependent, and justice, which is an ideal concept detached from real-world constraints.
Defining Law and Justice
To understand the relationship between law and justice, it is imperative to establish clear definitions for both terms. In particular, justice, when applied at the individual level, must be elucidated. Aristotle offers various conceptions of justice in his works. In Nicomachean Ethics, he posits that justice encompasses "fairness involving equitable distributions and the correction of what is inequitable." Over time, his definition evolves to emphasize justice as "what we owe to each other" in relation to other individuals. Modern philosophers concur that justice primarily concerns judgments of individuals' interactions, making what we do to others a pivotal determinant of just or unjust actions.
exceptions, they are just. The second formulation, the formula of humanity, stipulates that one should "act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a mere means." Kant's formulations transcend personal characteristics, focusing on logic and reason. This concept of justice resolves individual dilemmas by depersonalizing them, making it easier to implement the law. The enduring appeal of Kant's formulations lies in their simplicity and universality.
Justice as an Objective Reality
Throughout human history, debates have raged over whether justice is relative or absolute. The argument presented here asserts that justice exists as an objective reality. Two perspectives, logic and empirical observation, support this assertion.
Firstly, we experience a profound sense of injustice in various situations. If we can recognize injustice, its counterpart, justice, must also exist. The very act of feeling injustice implies the existence of justice. To claim that "there is no absolute correctness or absolute falseness" contradicts itself, as this statement is inherently absolute. It leads us into a self-contradictory position.
Secondly, empirical observation suggests that an objective justice must exist. Our experiences of injustice are rooted in an inherent desire for justice. Psychological studies show that our thoughts and beliefs correspond to reality, and our feelings are genuine reflections of life. If we have a deep-seated urge to seek justice, it implies the existence of an objective justice.
This assertion that justice exists objectively allows us to delve into the discussion of law.
Law
To examine the relationship between law and justice, we must consider the evolution of legal systems. Legal precedents often change over time as society's understanding of justice progresses.
One pivotal moment in this evolution occurred with the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts. The case of Quock Walker v. Jennison in April 1781 marked one of the earliest instances of a court referencing a written constitution as a binding legal document. The court ruled that "perpetual servitude can no longer be tolerated in our government, and… liberty can only be forfeited by some criminal conduct or relinquished by personal consent or contract." The verdict in favor of Quock Walker contributed to the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, but the journey toward justice was far from complete.
Despite legislative changes, education remained a point of contention, particularly in an era marked by income inequality and uneven distribution of resources. In the mid-19th century, the case of Roberts v. The City of Boston (1845) exemplified the ongoing struggle for justice. Benjamin F. Roberts challenged the school's exclusion of his daughter, Sarah C. Roberts, from receiving an education. The Massachusetts supreme court ruled that "local elected officials had the authority to control local schools and that separate schools did not violate black students' rights." This verdict laid the foundation for the "separate but equal" doctrine, a legal concept that persisted until the signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Educational justice remains a pressing concern today, particularly in an era where income disparities persist and educational resources are distributed unequally. The 1971 case of Serrano v. Priest addressed this issue. John Serrano, a parent with children in Los Angeles public schools, argued that educational resources were unfairly distributed between high- and low-income areas. The case invoked the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that abridge citizens' privileges or immunities. Approximately two decades later, numerous states considered funding public education through state-based taxes unconstitutional, thereby promoting greater equality in public schools.
Justice and Law: Bridging the Gap
After considering the definitions of law and justice and exploring historical legal cases, we can now attempt to elucidate the relationship between these two concepts.
Interestingly, the term "justice" is notably absent from the legal encyclopedia in English. However, this does not imply that judges or legal professionals avoid employing the term "justice." In fact, judges often use phrases like "just and equitable" or "just and reasonable" to express their ideals. This phenomenon underscores the intricate connection between law and justice.
Law, in its strictest sense, is a normative construct that relies on social norms to regulate human behavior. These social norms encompass justice, which local laws endeavor to uphold and approximate. It is essential to understand that, on the path to justice, morality should not be discarded. H.L.A. Hart, an English legal positivist and former professor of jurisprudence at Oxford University, contends that law should be subjected to moral scrutiny. Law is not merely a closed logical system but should be guided by universal moral principles to achieve justice. Hart's perspective emphasizes the application of universal laws to achieve justice, even in cases where seemingly unjust laws are justly applied. This approach recognizes that justice must remain central to the legal system.
The relationship between law and justice can be likened to a mathematical concept—an asymptote. Justice serves as the asymptote that the curve of law can approach but never quite reach. While the law continually refines and improves, striving to bridge the gap between law and justice, these two concepts may never completely intersect. Law acts as the method by which society reaches justice, with justice itself remaining the ultimate goal. The method may evolve and adapt, but the objective remains constant.
The pursuit of justice within the realm of law is inevitably a continuous endeavor. Philosophers, legal scholars, and legislators will perpetually engage in this discourse until a definitive solution is found. Justice, as Aristotle observed, is central to the order of society. Therefore, it is the duty of law to bring us closer to a just society, and the hope is that one day, ultimate justice will be achieved.
Comments