Hello lovely Patrons! Here's a new video for you on ethics, and whether intended and foreseen harms are morally different.
Comments
This is a really interesting philosophical question and one I think about from time to time. Most people would consider the NET effect of any action taken and where human life is involved, there must be "very large and certain benefits" in lives saved, associated with incurring collateral damage. The broader philosophical question is: how do you measure "very large and certain benefits" and what is the right threshold? The classic example is Harry Truman's decision to drop the first atomic bombs. Notwithstanding this, there is a moral obligation on those taking such actions to minimise collateral damage as much as possible. This in my view, is the moral justification for drone strikes in the War on Terror. Drone strikes minimise collateral damage dramatically when compared with traditional "boots on the ground" military campaigns - most people recognise that and that is why campaigns against the use of drones are met with apathy from the general public.