Articles;

1. APA citation:

Limata, T. (2023). Decision making in killer robots is not bias free. Journal of Military Ethics,
22(2), 118-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2023.2286044

2. Summary of the argument:

According to the article, autonomous weapon systems (AWS) or "killer robots" make biased
decisions. Limata claims that biases might occur in three important characteristics of AWS
autonomy: 1) tasks completed autonomously, 2) the human-machine connection (especially
when humans are "out of the loop"), and 3) the sophistication of the machine's decision-making
process. The author discusses several types of bias, including human biases reflected in
training data, algorithmic biases, and biases caused by the complex nature of military settings.
Limata contends that these biases may lead to violations of international humanitarian law
norms such as discrimination and proportionality. The research suggests that it is critical to
recognize and minimize these biases before implementing AWS in wartime circumstances.

In conclusion, Limata's (2023) study is not only a valuable resource for exploring the biases
inherent in AI decision-making in military settings, but it also provides broader ethical
implications and a framework for comprehending the duties connected with autonomous
technologies. Integrating this study into your paper will increase its depth and provide a
comprehensive examination of the issues posed by killer robots in modern warfare.

Riesen, E. (2022). The Moral Case for the Development and Use of Autonomous Weapon
Systems. Journal of Military Ethics, 21(2), 132-150.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2124022

2. Summary of the argument:

Riesen contends that there is a compelling moral rationale for creating and deploying
autonomous weapon systems (AWS) in conflict. He gives two main arguments: Deploying AWS
reduces psychological and moral risk for soldiers by lowering the number of people making life-
or-death decisions and spreading accountability for mistakes more widely. Developing AWS
technology could lead to non-lethal warfare approaches that lessen pain and mortality among
both soldiers and civilians. Riesen thinks that these positive moral considerations outweigh
concerns to AWS and justify continuing study and development rather than outlawing the
technology.

In summary, Riesen’s (2022) article will be instrumental in providing a moral justification

for the development and use of autonomous weapon systems, facilitating a balanced
discussion in your paper. By engaging with Riesen’s arguments, you can address both
sides of the debate, contributing to a nuanced exploration of the ethical challenges and
considerations surrounding autonomous weapons in modern warfare.

1. APA citation:

Young, G. (2022). Should autonomous weapons need a reason to kill? Journal of Applied
Philosophy, 39(5), 885-900. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12597

2. Short summary:

This article refutes the argument that deploying ordinary human soldiers is morally superior to
autonomous weapons (AWs) based on motives for action. The author claims that because AWs
cannot act for the wrong reason, they may be morally superior than human warriors who can act
for the wrong purpose. He also claims that using AWs will lessen the risk to human soldiers'
deaths. The paper analyzes counter-arguments, including the possibility that AWs express the
motives of their human commanders, but ultimately believes that AWs are still ethically better
because they are likely to act for the correct reasons and are not moral patients themselves.

In summary, Young's (2022) article will help shape your paper's investigation of the ethical
issues surrounding autonomous weapons, notably their reasoning for lethal actions. By
engaging with Young's points, you can create a complex discussion about responsibility,
ethical frameworks, and the perils of autonomous decision-making in conflict. This will
increase the depth and significance of your analysis, making it an important contribution to
your research on this vital topic.

1. APA citation:

Roden-Bow, A. (2023). Killer robots and inauthenticity: A Heideggerian response to the ethical
challenge posed by lethal autonomous weapons systems. Conatus: Journal of Philosophy, 8(2),
477-486. https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.34864
 2. Summary of the argument:

The paper contends that lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) raise ethical issues from
a Heideggerian standpoint for two primary reasons: Because artificial intelligence lacks true
moral agency, LAWS cannot be considered moral actors who have responsibility for their acts.
According to Heidegger's philosophy, deaths caused by LAWS are "inauthentic" because they
render persons to mere resources, denying them the option of an authentic death. The author
argues that these ethical difficulties are inherent in LAWS and cannot be solved, hence the
creation and deployment of such weapons should be forbidden.

In summary, Roden-Bow’s (2023) article will be instrumental in providing a philosophical and

ethical framework for analyzing lethal autonomous weapon systems through a Heideggerian
lens. By engaging with concepts of inauthenticity and existential responsibility, you can deepen
your exploration of the moral challenges posed by autonomous weapons in warfare, enhancing
the rigor and depth of your analysis. This unique perspective will contribute to a more
comprehensive discussion of the ethical implications of technology in military contexts.

1. APA citation:

Roff, H. (2016). To ban or to regulate autonomous weapons: A US response. Bulletin of the

Atomic Scientists, 72(2), 122-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145920

2. Summary of the argument:

Roff contends that autonomous weapons endanger civilian safety and human rights in both
combat and peacetime. She claims that existing technology does not enable autonomous
weapons to accurately discriminate between fighters and civilians. Even with future
developments, autonomous weapons may violate human rights laws by conducting surveillance
or denying due process. Roff warns of the hazards of an AI arms race, arguing that a prohibition
and strong international regulation of autonomous weapons are required to reduce risks while
permitting good uses of AI technology.

In summary, Roff's (2016) article will be useful in giving a detailed exploration of the policy
alternatives available for dealing with autonomous weapons. Examining the reasons for
and against banning or regulating these systems allows you to construct a well-rounded
view that takes into account ethical issues, US perspectives, and international
repercussions. This will add depth and relevance to your work, making it a useful resource
for discussing the complicated terrain of autonomous weapons and military ethics.