Choosing a weapon can alter or forfeit the user’s moral essence

Evidence

I am my weapon: that is a counterintuitive thesis. It conflicts with concepts of instrumentalism, contradicting the idea that the nature of the subject is independent of the means of his actions. On the contrary, it affirms that the two are essentially identical. If that is the case, I cannot dissociate my intentions or ends—the things that make me what I am—from the means that I employ in order to achieve them. Ethically, what I am is expressed and defined by the nature of the weapons that I mobilize. The choice of weapons is important because it radically affects what we are, and at stake in that choice is the risk of losing our soul or essence. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 610

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘losing our soul’ risk echoes the drone operative’s transformation the reader is tracking. — connects to: Refusing to kill is about what one becomes, not what one ought to do; A combatant’s weapon defines the moral essence of who they become; Weapons constitute the essence of combatants, not mere instruments — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 609 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• An ultimate power to decide generates its own norms and cannot be trusted #expands (0.82)
• Weapons constitute the essence of combatants, not mere instruments #expands (0.75) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 609