Sunday, July 15, 2012


On the moral case people make for drones, here's a thought. Sometimes the idea, "something is better than nothing or something worse", is still wrong if people still die. Citing statistics for fewer innoncent people dying from drone attacks than from other types of attacks the military uses against enemies doesn't make drones the moral choice.

Changing to drones doesn't make it better when and where innocent people still die. We wouldn't accept it if foreign militaries used drones against American targets and killed innocent Americans, so why do we accept innocent foreigners dying in our drone attacks? Collateral damage (the polite term for innocent dead people) is still collateral damage, still dead people.

I doubt the loved ones of the dead make the distinction about the moral choice made by us. People still die. Nothing changes that fact, only how we choose to kill them. And that's not a moral choice, it's an immoral one.

No comments:

Post a Comment