Remote killing removes reciprocal constraints that traditionally shaped warrior morality.

Evidence

What the Republic suggested by this thought experiment finds technical realization in the drone. As John Kaag and Sarah Kreps write, given that “remote-controlled machines cannot suffer the consequences [of their actions] and the humans who operate them do so at a great distance, the myth of Gyges is more a parable of modern counterterrorism than it is about terrorism.” Freed from the constraints imposed by reciprocal relations, will the drone masters be able to continue to demonstrate virtue and to resist the temptation to commit injustice with virtually no sanction imposed? That question, to which we shall return, raises the matter of moral hazard. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 343

Categorization

• XREF: Moral hazard from removed reciprocity connects directly to the reader’s interest in the twisted logic of impunity. — connects to: Remote killing free from retaliation creates a moral hazard problem; Remote-controlled weapons treat the enemy as dangerous material to be eliminated unilaterally — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 142; Remote weapons make war unilateral with deaths confined to the enemy side (+2 more)
• SEED: Angle: how removing mutual vulnerability from warfare creates institutional moral hazard, not just personal immorality.

Related

• Remote killing free from retaliation creates a moral hazard problem (similarity 0.91)
• Remote killing of humans drew less moral outrage than remote hunting of animals (similarity 0.87)
• Remote weapons make war unilateral with deaths confined to the enemy side (similarity 0.87)
• Moral limits on weapons apply only where adversaries are equals (similarity 0.86)
• The drone made warfare absolutely unilateral, killing without risk of being killed (similarity 0.86)
• Remote-controlled weapons treat the enemy as dangerous material to be eliminated unilaterally (similarity 0.86)
• War’s immunity from murder prosecutions rests on mutual reciprocity (similarity 0.85)
• Eliminating reciprocal exposure to violence makes drones look like cowardly weapons. (similarity 0.85)
• Drone-weaponized remote control radicalizes war into one-sided killing from safe zones (similarity 0.85)
• Radical protection from death transforms war into one-sided slaughter or hunting (similarity 0.85)
• Risk-free warfare erodes the legal principles justifying the right to kill in war. (similarity 0.84)
• Right to kill depends on readiness to expose own soldiers (similarity 0.83)
• Drone warfare creates a new configuration that is neither war nor peace (similarity 0.83)
• Unilateral drone killing makes the legal right to kill merely formal. (similarity 0.83)
• Armed drones make killing a priori one-directional, converting combat into slaughter. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Remote weapons make war unilateral with deaths confined to the enemy side #expands (0.75)
• Remote-controlled weapons treat the enemy as dangerous material to be eliminated unilaterally #expands (0.70) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 142
• War’s immunity from murder prosecutions rests on mutual reciprocity #expands (0.65)
• Radical protection from death transforms war into one-sided slaughter or hunting #expands (0.60)