According to my research, and my understanding of the term deontological is that it is an ethical perspective that deals with morality of an action such as a job duty based on ethics that commitments a person to their duty like in the military. Next, utilitarianism reasoning is basically a constructed system of ethics based on the rightness or wrongness of an action that should be judged by its consequences even a step further to promote the maximum happiness for the number of people. To me what distinguishes both deontological approach, and utilitarian reasoning in terms of military is that when dealing with the military sometimes the big picture may not be fully visualized or interprate as in many people feel something is wrong instead of using reality or common sense taking in account of everything that may actually help a lot of people. Additionally, so the two approaches are different deontological is the duty so to me it implies something that is specific or precise actions that lead to an event such as a battle or war, utilitarianism is more of focused concentration of the end result of specific actions or events like wars and battles.
In the degree of of a noble action helping a larger number of people one noticeable utilitarian argument towards the beginning of Kenneth Anderson lecture is that drones are a more precise weapon than 25 years ago technology, and insist that Americans should be grateful for the advanced development in technology. To me that would imply that the precision of the advanced technology keeps the margin for error or collateral damage down to a minimum which would be focusing on the end results I must agree we should keep room for error down to a minimum as much as possible.
Next, if we think in terms of just pure action without regard of positivity or negativity with deontology than an example is the use of computers from naval members that can press a button from an approximately safe distance sending a missile to a specified target in which the orders come down the chain of command from an superior (Thames, 2013). It seems as though the ethics of a job description is a issue such as press of a button to send a missile could be both a technology issue of keeping the precision on the identified target, and the pressure from political leaders to carry out orders in either case the ethic of the duty to me is based on the template on what is considered ethical by the majority with its context plus the guidelines to follow based on law. From what I noticed sometimes law doesn't feel ethical sometimes, but feelings may not be necessarily reality.
Personally I think that Kenneth Anderson was much stronger simply for the reason of keeping the margin of damage down to a minimum. Fact remains no matter how we feel about the usage of something if the job description requires an action that is lawful it must be carried out so to me I would want to keep the precision, and keep error to a minimum so that way I can feel some kind of humanity. In some type of battle or war ethics and morals will be tested it's part of the territory, but if thinking in terms of the ending results of keeping things to a minimum than Kenneth Anderson receive my vote on this topic.
My response to someone that disagree is that in many instances people are still going to do the job duty especially if not only its lawful, but there career depends on it. In addition, there is a quote by Desmond Tutu he states,"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality". In this class discussion being neutral doesn't help, because according to my knowledge human beings have battling since the beginning of time and territory seems to be the big factor. Plus most things have a perspective side to it as in some countries what is lawful is considered criminal in America case, and point Amsterdam a lot of things are legal there, but in America it is illegal.
Reference:
1.) Nagel, T. (1972). War and massacre. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(2), 123-144.
2.) Thames, B. [Brad Thames]. (2013, May 3). Drones are ethical and effective|Kenneth Anderson|Oxford union [Video file]. Retrieved from
3.) Thames, B. [Brad Thames]. (2013, May 3). Drones are not ethical and effective|Prof. Jeremy Waldron|Oxford union [Video file]. Retrieved from
such a shame that we rush to weaponize things... drones can be so much fun, and create breathtaking imagery. I wish that was enough. https://steemit.com/photography/@edwardseaton/shooter-fpv-flight-log-110217-pid-tuning-crash-video
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit