UAVs In Search-and-rescue Missions: An Ethical Perspective And Issues (Essay Sample)

UAVs in Search-And-Rescue Missions: An Ethical Perspective Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation UAVs in Search-And-Rescue Missions: An Ethical Perspective Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), popularly known as “drones,” remain a celebrated innovation that continue to be fraught with tough ethical issues. UAVs suit the purposes of surveillance, road traffic control, domestic policing, exploration of natural resources, delivery of goods, and search-and-rescue missions. This essay scopes the ethical dilemmas in the use of UAVs in search-and-rescue missions, an intellectual battle in which no opponent presents adequate, ethically acceptable set of solutions. Ethical issues Although few studies explore the ethical issues of using drones in search-and-rescue missions, pressing concerns abound. The general thrust of literature is that using UAVs threatens people’s right to privacy. UAVs are not immune to abuse at all stages of the mission. Locating a missing individual will necessitate flying the devices in the airspace of people’s homesteads for instance, opening a floodgate of undesirable outcomes including capturing images and videos of others minus their consent in addition to increasing the possibility of midair collisions and loss of control (Hopkins, 2017; Wilson 2014). Other concerns have been that even though weaponized UAVs can rescue an individual entrapped in a dangerous situation, such as a terrorist hostage, it is unethical to harm or kill the innocent in the vicinity Hopkins, 2017), and worse to trivialize killing by relegating the responsibility to a machine (Wilson 2014). The increased adoption of unmanned aerial systems in search and rescue missions further had Hopkins (2017) questioning the ethical basis for letting technology “to take away jobs from people” (p. 2). Stakeholders A key stakeholder in this debate is the humanitarian sector. Actors in this group, such as the Red Cross, argue that UAVs are essential tools for crisis mapping as well as search and rescue, especially when a disaster hits. The military, too, believe that deploying a drone during warfare, for example, to rescue one of them or any other person of interest is prudent compared to risking more lives in the process. Also subsumable in one category of stakeholders are developers of drone technologies and the consumers – the latter encompasses corporations and private citizens. To this lot, UAVs offer cost-cutting means to promote security, entertainment, and learning. The general public emerges as another important stakeholder cohort. While the people appreciate the advantages of drones, they are concerned about the influx of these devises and the potential dangers. Besides violating people’s privacy, a fundamental right, UAVs threaten to exacerbate the unemployment crisis and jeopardize public safety (Hopkins, 2017; Wilson 2014). Possible Solutions Researchers have used different moral principles to argue different solutions out of this impasse. Based on the principle of consequentialism, Wilson (2014) contended that humans are moral agents who are defined by remorse, a quality that prevents them from ending a life even in extreme situations such as during war. Accordingly, until UAVs are sophisticated enough for this capability, they should only be used for search and rescue operations which do not involve making decisions like ending human life. Using the principle of double effect Hopkins (2017) was convinced that it is sometimes acceptable to cause harm only as a side effect of a good result, thus sanctioning the use of drones as long as the end is appropriate. Interestingly, both Wilson ...