Remote killing of humans drew less moral outrage than remote hunting of animals

Evidence

The triggers of moral indignation are quite mysterious sometimes. While the virtual hunting of animals was almost universally condemned as scandalous, the remote-controlled hunting of human beings was at the same moment taking off without any of those same people making any objections. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 163

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s stated interest in how the drone operative moves between killing fields and coffee breaks — the moral normalization of remote killing. — connects to: Society condemned remote animal killing while embracing remote human killing.; Distance killing is not morally less terrible than passionate violence — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 960; Drone morality inverts ethics to make unendangered killing good — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 453 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Drone morality inverts ethics to make unendangered killing good #expands (0.70) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 453
• Empathy discourse is repurposed to legitimize mechanized killing #expands (0.60)
• Faceless blurry drone imagery reduces moral resistance to killing #responds-to (0.55) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 404
• Remote-controlled weapons treat the enemy as dangerous material to be eliminated unilaterally #expands (0.55) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 142
• Remote weapons make war unilateral with deaths confined to the enemy side #expands (0.50)