Choose One Contested Development In Your Professional Histor

Choose One Contested Development In The History Of Your Profession Or

Choose one contested development in the history of your profession or field of study and based on research and complete the worksheet. If you have already discussed your own profession in the class, choose an ethical debate related to a STEM profession that has not been covered. For this case study, be sure to apply a detailed ethical system to the selected case. Consider at least 4 specific aspects of an ethical rationale for your discussion of whether the instance is moral and your discussion of leadership recommendations.

Paper For Above instruction

The contested development in the history of my profession I have chosen to analyze is the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in autonomous weapons systems. This topic has sparked widespread ethical debates within the fields of military technology, robotics, and ethics, raising profound questions about morality, leadership, and responsibility. Given the increasing sophistication of AI, the integration of autonomous systems in warfare presents challenges that require careful ethical scrutiny and leadership considerations.

Historically, the development of autonomous weapons has been driven by technological advancement and strategic military interests. However, this progress has been contested due to moral concerns about delegating life-and-death decisions to machines. The ethical debate primarily centers on whether it is morally permissible to equip machines with the capacity to execute lethal force without human intervention. This controversy embodies issues of accountability, the potential for misuse, and the moral implications of removing human judgment from warfare. As technology progresses, the debate intensifies about the responsibility of developers, policymakers, and military leaders.

Applying an ethical system such as Kantian deontology provides a robust framework for evaluating this contested development. Kantian ethics emphasizes the importance of human dignity, moral duty, and the categorical imperative, which mandates acting according to principles that can be universally applied and respect for persons. From this perspective, delegating lethal decision-making to autonomous machines could be seen as morally problematic because it may treat human life as a means rather than an end. This conflicts with Kant's principle that humans must be treated with inherent dignity and respect.

In contrast, utilitarianism emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number. Proponents argue that autonomous weapons could reduce soldier casualties and potentially minimize collateral damage, thereby maximizing overall societal benefit. However, the risk of unintended consequences, such as accidental escalation or malfunctioning AI, poses significant ethical concerns. The potential for autonomous systems to make unpredictable or ethically inappropriate decisions underscores the importance of careful leadership in deploying such technology.

Four key aspects of an ethical rationale relevant to this contested development include the principles of accountability, safety, proportionality, and the avoidance of unnecessary harm. First, accountability involves determining who is responsible when autonomous weapons cause unintended harm—developers, military leaders, or political authorities. Leadership must establish clear lines of responsibility and oversight to ensure moral and legal accountability. Second, safety concerns focus on the reliability of AI systems and the potential for malfunction or hacking, which could have devastating consequences. Leaders must prioritize rigorous testing and fail-safes to prevent unintended use or misuse.

Third, the principle of proportionality demands that the use of force be commensurate with the threat, which becomes complex with autonomous decision-making. Ethical leaders must ensure that AI systems are programmed with clear parameters to avoid excessive or unwarranted harm. Fourth, minimizing unnecessary harm aligns with just war theory and humanistic values, emphasizing that autonomous systems should not escalate conflict or cause suffering beyond what is morally justified.

Leadership recommendations include establishing international regulations or treaties to govern autonomous weapons, promoting transparency in development and deployment processes, and ensuring human oversight in critical decision points. Leaders in STEM fields and policymaking must collaborate to develop ethical guidelines, prioritize human dignity, and prevent the proliferation of lethal autonomous systems that could spiral into uncontrolled arms races.

In conclusion, the development of autonomous weapons exemplifies a contested technological advancement fraught with ethical dilemmas. The application of ethical theories such as Kantian deontology and utilitarianism reveals complex considerations regarding morality and leadership responsibilities. Ensuring accountability, safety, proportionality, and minimizing unnecessary harm are crucial principles guiding ethical leadership in this domain. Ultimately, responsible stewardship and robust international cooperation are essential to ethically navigate the future of autonomous military technology.

References

• Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.
• Chikio, M. (2020). Ethical Challenges of Autonomous Weapons. Journal of Military Ethics, 19(2), 95-112.
• Francis, L. (2019). AI and autonomous weapons: Moral and legal implications. Ethics & International Affairs, 33(3), 395-408.
• Heyns, C. (2016). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. United Nations Human Rights Council.
• Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. (2012). Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press.
• Mason, B. (2021). Ethical considerations in military AI. Defense Studies, 21(1), 1-22.
• Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62-77.
• Sharkey, N. (2010). The evitability of autonomous robot warfare. International Journal of Human Rights, 14(7), 779-808.
• Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2009). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press.
• Williams, M. (2020). Responsible AI and autonomous weapons: Leadership challenges. Journal of Defense & Security Analysis, 36(4), 419-432.