Scholarlink

<p>The ongoing development of autonomous weapons systems, and the increasing frequency of their deployment on the battlefield, poses a pressing problem for military ethics. Some philosophers have argued that the deployment of fully autonomous weapons would be unethical because it would generate <i>responsibility gaps</i>, that is, situations in which no agent, human or artificial, is morally responsible for wrongful harms resulting from that deployment. But do laypeople find it plausible that the use of fully autonomous weapons gives rise to such gaps? This paper reports results from two studies (total <i>N</i> = 497) designed to answer this question. In these studies, participants were presented with a hypothetical war crime scenario in which an officer ordered a lethal autonomous robot to attack a village, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians. Most participants attributed some responsibility for the outcome to the officer commanding the attack, the robot that carried out the attack, and the people who programmed the robot. Results from both studies were consistent with the <i>Path Model of Blame</i>, according to which attributions of responsibility are influenced by a variety of contextual factors, such as the extent to which the target is seen as acting intentionally. Attributions of responsibility to agents of war, both artificial and human, thus seem to be at odds with the idea that the use of autonomous weapons would generate responsibility gaps. Philosophers who oppose using autonomous weapons on moral grounds, therefore, may want to avoid argumentative strategies that rely heavily on worries about responsibility gaps.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Of machines and men: Attributions of moral responsibility in AI-assisted warfare

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月5日

查看全文
  • Philip Robbins

摘要

The ongoing development of autonomous weapons systems, and the increasing frequency of their deployment on the battlefield, poses a pressing problem for military ethics. Some philosophers have argued that the deployment of fully autonomous weapons would be unethical because it would generate responsibility gaps, that is, situations in which no agent, human or artificial, is morally responsible for wrongful harms resulting from that deployment. But do laypeople find it plausible that the use of fully autonomous weapons gives rise to such gaps? This paper reports results from two studies (total N = 497) designed to answer this question. In these studies, participants were presented with a hypothetical war crime scenario in which an officer ordered a lethal autonomous robot to attack a village, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians. Most participants attributed some responsibility for the outcome to the officer commanding the attack, the robot that carried out the attack, and the people who programmed the robot. Results from both studies were consistent with the Path Model of Blame, according to which attributions of responsibility are influenced by a variety of contextual factors, such as the extent to which the target is seen as acting intentionally. Attributions of responsibility to agents of war, both artificial and human, thus seem to be at odds with the idea that the use of autonomous weapons would generate responsibility gaps. Philosophers who oppose using autonomous weapons on moral grounds, therefore, may want to avoid argumentative strategies that rely heavily on worries about responsibility gaps.