Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Autonomous Weapons and Distributed Responsibility

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The possibility that autonomous weapons will be deployed on the battlefields of the future raises the challenge of determining who can be held responsible for how these weapons act. Robert Sparrow has argued that it would be impossible to attribute responsibility for autonomous robots' actions to their creators, their commanders, or the robots themselves. This essay reaches a much different conclusion. It argues that the problem of determining responsibility for autonomous robots can be solved by addressing it within the context of the military chain of command. The military hierarchy is a system of distributing responsibility between decision makers on different levels and constraining autonomy. If autonomous weapons are employed as agents operating within this system, then responsibility for their actions can be attributed to their creators and their civilian and military superiors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, C., V, G., & Zinser, J. (2000). Prolegomena to any future artificial moral agent. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 12, 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, J. (2001). Acoustic weapons—a prospective assessment. Science and Global Security, 9, 165–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, J., & Gubrud, M. A. (2004). Military, arms control, and security aspects of nanotechnology. In A. N. Davis Baird & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the Nanoscale. Fairfax: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, R. C. (2009). Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Asaro, P. M. (2006). What should we want from a robot ethic? International Review of Information Ethics, 6, 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asaro, P. M. (2007). Robots and Responsibility from a Legal Perspective. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

  • Benedict, H. (2010). The lonely soldier: The private war of women serving in Iraq. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carreiras, H. (2008). Gender and the military: women in the armed forces of western democracies. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. L. (2004). The moral warrior: ethics and service in the U.S. military. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaška, M. (2001). The shadow side of command responsibility. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 49(3), 455–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deakin, S. (2008). Education in an Ethos at the royal military academy Sandhurst. In P. Robinson, N. De Lee, & D. Carrick (Eds.), Ethics education in the military. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L., & Plattner, M. F. (1996). Introduction. In L. Diamond & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), Civil military relations and democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, B. R. (2006). Fundamental issues in social robotics. International Review of Information Ethics, 6, 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feaver, P. D. (2003). Armed servants: agency, oversight, and civil–military relations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1970). Collective responsibility. In doing and deserving: essays in the theory of responsibility (pp. 222–251). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feith, D. J. (2009). War and decision: inside the Pentagon at the dawn of the war on terrorism. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geraci, R. M. (2011). Martial bliss: war and peace in popular science robotics. Philosophy & Technology, 24(3), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the cuban missile crisis. New York: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K. W., & Wolf, M. J. (2008). The ethics of designing artificial agents. Ethics in Information Technology no., 10(3), 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1956). Civilian control of the military: a theoretical statement. In S. E. Eulau & M. Janowitz (Eds.), Political behavior: a reader in theory and research. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1959). The soldier and the State: the theory and politics of civil-military relations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, L. (2011). Is it morally right to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in war? Philosophy & Technology, 24(3), 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., & Miller, K. W. (2008). Un-making artificial moral agents. Ethics and Information Technology no., 10(3), 123–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasher, A. (2004). Civil disobedience and military ethics. In J. Irwin (Ed.), War and virtual war: the challenges to communities. New York: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilcullen, D. (2009). The accidental guerrilla: fighting small wars in the midst of a big one. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, A. (2009). Killer robots: legality and ethicality of autonomous weapons. Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luciano, F., & Sanders, J. W. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), 349–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, S. (2007). Robo soldiers. National Defense (September), pp. 36–40.

  • Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap in ascribing responsibility for the actions of automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6, 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, D. (2011). What matters to a machine? In M. Anderson & S. L. Anderson (Eds.), Machine ethics (pp. 88–114). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan, J. (2006). On the moral equality of combatants. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14, 377–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan, J. (2008). The morality of war and the law of war. In D. Rodin & S. Henry (Eds.), Just and unjust warriors. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellema, G. (1988). Individuals, groups, and shared moral responsibility. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mileham, P. (2008). Teaching military ethics in the British armed forces. In P. Robinson, L. Nigel De, & D. Carrick (Eds.), Ethics education in the military. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskos, C. C., Williams, J. A., & Segal, D. R. (2000). Armed forces after the cold war. In J. A. Williams, C. C. Moskos, & D. R. Segal (Eds.), The postmodern military: armed forces after the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noorman, M. (2008). Limits to the autonomy of agents. In A. Briggle, K. Waelbers, & P. Brey (Eds.), Current issues in computing and philosophy (pp. 65–75). Fairfax: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orend, B. (2000). War and International justice: a kantian perspective. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiel, M. J. (1999). Obeying orders: atrocity, military discipline and law of war. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiel, M. J. (2011). Making sense of mass atrocity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagallo, U. (2011). Robots of just war: a legal perspective. Philosophy and Technology, 24(3), 307–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, T. (2006). Prospects for a Kantian machine. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockwood, L. (2007). Walking away from Nuremberg: just war and the doctrine of command responsibility. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, D. (2006). The ethics of war: state of the art. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23(3), 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, D. (2008). The moral inequality of soldiers: why just in bello asymmetry is half right. In D. Rodin & H. Shue (Eds.), Just and unjust warriors: the moral and legal status of soldiers (pp. 44–68). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulzke, M. (2011). Robots as weapons in just wars. Philosophy and Technology, 24(3).

  • Searle, J. R. (2004). Mind: a brief introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, N. (2007). Automated killers and the computing profession. Computer (November), pp. 122–124.

  • Sharkey, N. (2008a). Cassandra or false prophet of doom: AI robots and war. Intelligent Systems, 23(4), 14–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, N. (2008b). The ethical frontiers of robotics. Computer Science, 322(5909), 1800–1801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, N. (2008c). Grounds for discrimination: autonomous robot weapons. Rusi Defence Systems (October), pp. 86–89.

  • Sharkey, N. (2009). Weapons of indiscriminate Lethality. FIfF Kommunikation (January), pp. 26–28.

  • Simpson, T. W. (2011). Robots, trust and war. Philosophy & Technology, 24(3), 325–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. W. (2009). Robots at War: The New Battlefield. The Wilson Quarterly, http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?aid=1313.

  • Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullins, J. P. (2006). When is a robot a moral agent? International Review of Information Ethics, 6, 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullins, J. P. (2010). Robowarfare: can robots be more ethical than humans on the battlefield? Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (2006). Arguing about war. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfendale, J. (2009). Preventing torture in counter-insurgency operations. In D. Carrick, J. Connelly, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Ethics education for irregular warfare. Burtlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. J. (1985). Sharing Responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 22, 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

    Marcus Schulzke

Authors
  1. Marcus Schulzke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus Schulzke.

Additional information

I would like to thank Amanda Cortney Carroll and the journal’s reviewers for their comments on the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schulzke, M. Autonomous Weapons and Distributed Responsibility. Philos. Technol. 26, 203–219 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-012-0089-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-012-0089-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation