ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF WEAPON DESIGN

AN ENGINEERS PERSPECTIVE MARIJN WOUTERS 1508075

Abstract In this paper the ethical implications of weapon engineering are discussed from the perspective of an engineer. It is first argued that engineers have a passive responsibility for their designs based on four different factors, including foreseeability. This responsibility means that not the technology itself, but rather the way a form of technology is or can expected to be used, makes the design process morally just. Then the Jus ad Bellum and the Jus in Bello theories are used to provide a handhold for determining the morality of conflicts. However, determining the morality of weapon design is only possible to certain extent, since an engineer is not capable of controlling the applications of his design continuously. Thus, his technology might be used for morally questionable purposes, thereby making the activity of designing the technology immoral. As such, since practicality dictates that the application of a tool cannot be controlled indefinitely, it is morally unjust to develop any technological tool for which it can be foreseen that it can be applied as a weapon in immoral ways according to Just war theorem. In order to ensure that all engineers will act according to a morally just design process, it is required to set up a regulatory system that safeguards the Just war principles. If the decision to develop weapons or not is left open to the individual, a prisoners dilemma will arise. While most engineers agree to the immorality of developing weapons, it might be more beneficial for the individual to disregard this morality. This is analogues to the climate change problem, in which society en-mass does not change their lifestyle to improve climate conditions because they feel their personal contribution is limited. A central regulatory system will overcome this dilemma in the weapon industry by forcing the engineering society to adhere to morally responsible design principles. INTRODUCTION

Engineering is a craft that continuously develops new technologies. Scientific advances are implemented to create tools that should increase well-being in society. However, some of these tools are created with the intention of use in war. With such a goal in mind, the development and construction of such tools raise ethical questions: is it morally justified to developed weapons that can kill or maim other humans? And where do the responsibilities of engineers lie in an armed conflict?

These questions are extremely vital to engineers, since they put into question the moral obligation engineers have to society. Arguing this obligation in detail is done in this paper, but it is also brought down to a smaller, more personal level. During my study as an aerospace engineer I have faced the option of cooperating in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a military airplane designed as a piece of technology in conflict. While the option to take the internship was considered by me and several student colleagues, a large discussion arose on the ethical implications of accepting a position in such a project. Would it have been morally justifiable for me to work on the JSF, considering its design purpose? Page | 1

When an engineer is designing a tool, this is done with a specific application in mind; engineers consider the requirements of a new form of technology to help them develop the end product. Development of such a tool out of free will means that at some stage an engineer expects this tool to be used for its purpose. From this stems the assumption that an engineer is responsible for the actions of the tool he has developed, especially if this tool is used for its original design purpose. Being held accountable for the consequences of your invention is a difficult concept. Consider the following case: An engineer has single-handedly developed an anti-air missile. This missile is used by a third party to destroy a civilian airplane without cause, killing all passengers.

WHEN ARE WE RESPONSIBLE?

If the four conditions aforementioned are fulfilled, the engineer can be held responsible for the actions of his design. The two key terms that are used in this paper are foreseeability and freedom of action. Causal contribution is assumed in every case, since an engineer is contributing to the situation by providing the technological means to an end. IMPLICATIONS OF CREATING A WAR MACHINE

In what way is the engineer responsible in this case: something has already occurred that might be due to his actions? To be passive responsible for an action, four factors have to be fulfilled: causal contribution, freedom of action, foreseeability and wrong-doing. Assuming the engineer has designed something out of free will immediately fulfills the first two factors: he has contributed to the design of the weapon, thus having a contribution (causal contribution) and did so out of his own volition (freedom of action). As for foreseeability: when designing a weapon, any engineer can foresee that it can be used to injure or maim a human being. That also goes for this case; although the engineer might not have had this specific purpose in mind but thought of defending a military base from enemy fighters, it could have been foreseen that the weapon might be used against civilian aviation. The final factor that needs to be fulfilled for the engineer to be passively responsible is an act of wrong-doing taking place. Though the actual distinction between wrong and right differs per individual, it is generally accepted wrong to destroy a civil aircraft.

In what way is the engineer responsible for the deaths of the civilians? After all, his design intention was to create a missile that could destroy an aircraft. Without his efforts, the plane would have never been destroyed. However, it was not his intention to destroy that particular airplane, nor injure the passengers specifically.

Returning to the original dilemma of the jet fighter, we first look at the actual purpose of the device. A jet fighter is deployed to serve as device that provides intelligence and a staging platform for weapon deployment (among other reasons). The main focus of weapon deployment is inflicting damage, regardless of how precise and safe it might be. Since the fighter is designed to be a weapons platform, and a weapon is optimized to inflict damage, a fighter is capable and designed to inflict damage. Working on the JSF, and fully knowing what it will be used for once it has been completed, means that an engineer knows that the device he develops can be used to injure or maim humans, as well as cause destruction of property. With the assumption in mind that engineers are responsible for the actions of his creations, this automatically implies that a jet fighter designer is co-responsible for the consequences of using the Page | 2

jet fighter. In the example of the JSD internship: as an engineer I would be co-responsible for the consequences of the launch of the missiles carried by the JSF, regardless of the type of consequence. After all, I would be aware what the device would be capable of and work on it out of my own volition. Though the exact consequences of the deployment of the fighter would not be clear, I could still foresee that the missiles would be used, and that they can cause harm. Perhaps a missile would save the lives of countless humans by stopping an avalanche, or it could kill the same amount by destroying a village. No matter the consequence, since I designed the tool to do what it did (fire the missile) I have moral responsibility. The fact that an engineer is responsible for the actions of his creation does not mean that working on the JSF is morally the wrong thing to do. Instead of finalizing the argument, it is merely transported: is the deployment of jet fighters morally justified? After all, if the devices actions can be morally justified, and the consequences are directly related to the engineers involvement in its creation, that makes the engineers involvement morally acceptable as well. An obvious exception to moral weapon development comes from a practitioner of pacifism, who does not condone violence regardless of cause or consequence. Based on their ideology, designing weapons is always morally unjustifiable, thereby providing an answer to the moral issue debated in this paper. However, for those who do not practice pacifism, the morality of weapon design still depends on the applicability of the design. Imagine that a technological device is developed that will kill a random person somewhere on the world by pressing a button. In todays society, this is generally considered unjustifiable: what has that person done to deserve death? Murdering without reason or judgment is considered unethical by the majority. Since the engineer who has developed this tool is directly responsible for the actions of his device, that implies the deaths are (at least partly) his fault. Since killing innocent human beings is considered morally wrong, that automatically makes the engineers development of the tool immoral. Now consider the same device, developed in a similar fashion, in a world where killing a random citizen is considered morally justified, perhaps even applauded (overpopulation might be a reason). As such, the deaths of those citizens are still due to the engineer, but since the consequences are morally acceptable, so is the development of the tool. In the case of the JSF, this in effect means that in order to morally assess whether or not an engineer can join the project, he or she will have to evaluate if the deployment of the machine can be morally justified. In order to judge whether deployment of a war machine can be justified requires a detailed look at justification of conflict and the use of weapons in such a conflict. For this, the theories of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello are used. To properly analyze whether an armed conflict can be considered morally just, the theory of Jus Ad Bellum is used. This theory states that a war can morally be justified if JUS AD BELLUM AND JUS IN BELLO MORAL USE

it has a just cause is a last resort is declared by a proper authority

Page | 3

This last sentence already signifies how open for debate the Jus in Bello can be. After all, disproportionality is very difficult to determine in this case. The Utilitarian principle of largest amount of general happiness can shed a light on this point; as long as the consequences of the deployment of a weapon cause a smaller decrease in general happiness than the results of deployment increase this happiness, the deployment of such a weapon is just. Since the deployment of the weapon is just, so is the engineers involvement in development. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The ethical justification of working on weapons depends on consequences of application of these weapons. The Jus Ad Bellum gives an engineer the tools to determine whether a conflict is morally just, but if a conflict can be considered just, that does not mean everything goes. Killing an invading, aggressive spear-wielding tribe by obliterating it with two Apache helicopters is morally questionable regardless of the fact that the war was just. In what sense can the consequences of weapon use be justified is evaluated using the theory of Jus in Bello. One of the tenants of this theorem is that the consequences of offensive actions should remain proportional to the objective desired. This translates to minimizing casualties and destruction, in essence to minimize overall suffering (which corresponds to a Utilitarian view). In the case of the spear-wielding tribe the tenant implies that the original goal (stopping the invading tribe) might be achieved, but that the cost (the massacre of the entire tribe) is disproportional to that result.

A lot of these factors can be interpreted in a very broad way, and especially the first requirement is highly debated. Generally, a war is considered just if it is an act of self-defense, but at what point does self-defense turn into aggressive counter-attack? Regardless of the broad interpretation, the engineer is offered a handhold in judging whether a conflict is just in his or her eyes.

possess right intention, has a reasonable chance of success the means are in proportion to the achieved end

The story in the previous section sketches a very theoretical view of the moral dilemmas an engineer in weapon design faces. Practically speaking it is almost impossible to evaluate the Jus in Bello in real life, for several reasons. First of all, the guidelines determining just warfare and weapon deployment are not a fixed set of rules, but remain open for interpretation. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the engineer is not capable of predicting where and when his design is used. After all, some inventions will span decades in use (such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon), and it is impossible to predict all the conflicts in which the fighter will be used. There is no guarantee that the fighter will solely be used in just conflict.

Next to that, technology is not limited to a single organization or country. Technology can be stolen or sold, but regardless of what it does in the future, the engineer who built it still carries responsibility. Imagine an F-16 that is being used in a just conflict, by the side with whom the designing engineer allies. The deployment of this weapon being done in a morally responsible manner (as interpreted by the Jus in Bello), thus the engineer was morally correct in designing the fighter. However, somewhere in the war an F-16 is stolen by the enemy, who now uses it to bomb innocent allied civilians. The use of the fighter has become morally unacceptable, and so has the design of the vehicle. Page | 4

However, the main problem in real life is that the guarantee of pure just application is impossible. According to probabilistic reasoning, there is always a chance that weapons will be used in an unjust conflict. This is strengthened by the fact that there have been little to none just wars in recent years (Braun, 2006), and that the justness of wars and Jus in Bello remain open to interpretation (Myers, 1996) (Rengger, 2002). Moreover, weapons are not limited to a single conflict, or a single fighting side. As such, a weapon is likely to be used in a manner that is morally unacceptable to the designer. To carry this argument one step further, it could be argued that no technology of any kind should be designed, because it could be in some way be used to harm innocent lives, thereby making the engineers morally unjustified in designing the technology. This would ultimately lead to technological stagnation since no engineer felt morally just in designing anything. FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE

The problem with designing a weapon of war, and with any design at all, is that it is inherently impossible to determine what the weapon will be used for. If the use of a fighter could be solely limited to the engineers interpretation of a just conflict, it would (by the reasoning presented in this paper) automatically imply that the author is morally justified in designing the fighter.

Practically speaking, the key difference here lies in foreseeability of unjust consequences. Cases of war weapons such as a jet fighter have been specifically optimized with the intention of inflicting damage. It is therefore foreseeable to the engineer that they will at some point inflict damage, be that just or unjust. Other forms of technology, like household appliances, will likely never be used as a weapon and the engineer can therefore morally justify working on such a device (disregarding issues such as environmental impact). After all, he is not passively responsible if for some unforeseen reason someone uses his device for unjust, immoral actions. This rule of foreseeability also applies to the special case of dual-use technology. This stands for technology that can be adapted to suit both just and unjust causes, such as nuclear technology which can be used for either power generation or weapons of mass destruction. Even if an engineer develops a product purely for just, non-violent actions, he can foresee that dual-use technology might be used in conflict. Thus, even though it was not the engineers intention, the responsibility is still his to bear. This paper does not discuss whether the weapon system is used for the greater good, but rather whether an engineer can morally justify its application. Obviously, if a weapon would only be used to annihilate criminals that equal the devil incarnate it would no longer remain a moral debate for the engineer whether or not to work on its design. The problem with weapon systems remains that in one way or another they can always be used to inflict harm, either just or unjust. COMMUNAL RESPONSIBILITY

The reasoning proposed in this paper is a universal theory in a sense that engineers, as long as they share the same moral values and views on Jus in Bello, will agree to the following statement: working on a weapon system in a society where justified deployment cannot be guaranteed is an immoral activity on the engineers side. After all, although engineers might not always share a common view on just and unjust behavior, the fact that weapons use cannot be controlled means that they can be used opposing the moral views of the engineer, making his efforts morally unjustifiable. Page | 5

Now a frequently discussed case comes into question: should weapon development as a whole be forbidden? Producing weapons is after all morally impossible to justify for an engineer, so why would any professional do such a thing? This leads to a prisoners dilemma: although it is in engineering societies best interest to ban weapon production, the individual engineer might benefit more from disregarding this morality. It helps to make an analogue with the problem of climate change: though it is in societies best interest to en-mass increase environmental friendly living styles, individually speaking this only results in higher electricity bills and expensive food. An engineer might agree to the immorality of designing weapons, but due to factors like employment shortage or a large salary increase will decide to work in the weapon design sector regardless. Very often, the idea that a personal contribution is insignificant and will not decrease the problem as a whole will cause a victim of a prisoners dilemma to disregard the choice in communities interest. Though some engineers will cease to work on weapons, the fact that the option of choice remains will lead to some engineers choosing for personal benefit, thereby unbalancing the communal choice and making it less attractive to choose for communities best option.

The only way to ensure that engineers conform to their own moral standpoints is by forming a general consensus in engineering society. Rules and regulations, or perhaps amendments to the code of conduct for engineers will have to be necessary. Through those rules, engineering society is forced to consider the moral questions of weapon construction, and face penalties if they ignore the prevailing opinion on the morality of their work. Once that is the case, an engineer is not only forced to consider his morality and ethical questions in their employment, but the prisoners dilemma can be avoided. CONCLUSION

Every engineer has a passive responsibility for the actions of his design. This is especially critical in weapon system design, where the consequences can be devastating, whereas practicality dictates that moral dilemmas are less of an issue in for example the design of a television. It is not the design itself, but rather the way a technology is used that makes the design process morally acceptable. Initially, the moral acceptability of use of the design can be argued using the 2 proposed theorems, providing a handhold for the engineer to decide for himself whether his actions fit within his moral framework.

Since it is immoral for any engineer to work on foreseeable weaponry, the logical conclusion for a moral society would be to stop producing weapons. To avoid a prisoners dilemma in which an engineer will morally agree to stop working, but individual career options force him to work in weapon design regardless, a motivation will have to be introduced that forces the engineering society in general and as a whole to stop working on weapons. Practically speaking this translates to a set of rules and regulations (such as the engineering code of conduct) that penalize engineers and protects them from unjust and unethical behavior. Page | 6

However, at a certain stage an engineer can no longer control the applications of his technology, rendering it open to be used for purposes that do not fall within acceptable reaches of his moral framework. At that stage, the moral justification for working on the technology can no longer be guaranteed, in essence meaning that it is morally unjustified for any engineer to work on weapon technology. When working on a piece of weaponry, controlling the application is in the longer run never an option for the engineer, thus rendering it open to be used for just or unjust reasons. And by allowing it to be used for unjust conflict, the unjust moral consequences are transferred to the engineer, making his efforts in developing the weapon morally wrong because he carries responsibility. By logical extension my internship is morally unjust, meaning that I cannot partake in such a project, since I cannot be sure the fighter will be used for just reasons.

Poel, I. R. (2008). Ethics and Technology for Aerospace Engineering. Delft, Netherlands.

Myers, R. J. (1996). Notes on just war theory: whose justice, which wars? Ethics & International Affairs.

Moseley, A. (2009, February 10). Just War Theory. Retrieved November 18, 2012, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/

Braun, J. D. (2006). Explorations on just war: has it ever existed? Monterey, California: Naval postgraduate school thesis.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rengger, N. (2002). On the just war tradition in the twenty-first century. International Affairs.

Page | 7