Suchergebnisse

AbstractDefence agencies across the globe identify artificial intelligence (AI) as a key technology to maintain an edge over adversaries. As a result, efforts to develop or acquire AI capabilities for defence are growing on a global scale. Unfortunately, they remain unmatched by efforts to define ethical frameworks to guide the use of AI in the defence domain. This article provides one such framework. It identifies five principles—justified and overridable uses, just and transparent systems and processes, human moral responsibility, meaningful human control and reliable AI systems—and related recommendations to foster ethically sound uses of AI for national defence purposes.

The release of the 2024 National Defence Strategy (NDS) in April revealed a dividing line within Australia's strategic and defence community. The line is between Defence and the ADF, which have a new way of ...

This chapter explains why one familiar and otherwise plausible approach to the justification of killing in war cannot adequately ground commonsense views of permissible national defence. Reductionists believe that justified warfare reduces to an aggregation of acts that are justified under ordinary principles of interpersonal morality. The standard form of reductionism focuses on the principles governing killing in ordinary life, specifically those that justify intentional killing in self- and other-defence, and unintended but foreseen (for short, collateral) killing as a lesser evil. Justified warfare, on this view, is no more than the coextension of multiple acts justified under these two principles. Reductionism is the default philosophical approach to thinking through the ethics of killing in war. It makes perfect sense to ask what principles govern permissible killing in general, before applying them to the particular context of war.