1 Challenge the future The change on Moral Perception in relation to increased autonomous systems Experimental Proposals by Tjerk de Greef & Alex Leveringhaus

2 Challenge the future What is moral perception? Denotes the discernment (the ability to judge well) of morally relevant issues in particular situations Moral perception informs our moral reasoning, which is the deliberation of what is the right thing to do In international law and just war theory, moral perception plays a key role: Accurate perception of conflict situation & knowledge of relevant regulation/principles. Ability to apply correct principles to particular combat situation. Determine what course of action is necessary. Determine whether a target is a legitimate target/combatant (in other words: operator must weight discrimination, necessity and proportionality for sound targets)

3 Challenge the future Increased Autonomous Systems, like drones, are… Perfect for the dull, dangerous, dirty, and dodgy tasks BUT Potentially induce risks in moral perception, decision making, and action taking THEREFORE Experimental studies required

4 Challenge the future Questions? Do we fully understand the psychological effects on remote operators of conducting war at a distance? What are the psychological effects if we extend the concept of ‘war at a distance’ to reduced interaction (i.e., increased autonomy) with drones?

5 Challenge the future Characterization of Increased autonomous systems 1.Distance from the battlefield -> due to controlling a targeting system from a large distance -> decreased risk for the operator 2.Distance from the battlefield -> reduction of battlefield stressors -> leads to better moral judgments 3.Increased surveillance capabilities-> due to more sensors 4.Increased surveillance capabilities -> due to better sensors 5.Increased surveillance endurance-> due to increased flying time (up to 36 hours) 6.(2) + (3) + (4) -> reduced collateral damage due to improved recognition of patterns/improved situation awareness 7.(2) + (3) + (4) introduced a bonding risk with object/actors in the area of interest

6 Challenge the future Drones vs. Traditional Targeting Systems 1.Distance from the battlefield -> due to controlling a targeting system from a large distance -> decreased risk for the operator 2.Distance from the battlefield -> reduction of battlefield stressors -> leads to better moral judgments 3.Increased surveillance capabilities-> due to more sensors 4.Increased surveillance capabilities -> due to better sensors 5.Increased surveillance endurance-> due to increased flying time (up to 36 hours) 6.(2) + (3) + (4) -> reduced collateral damage due to improved recognition of patterns/improved situation awareness 7.(2) + (3) + (4) introduced a bonding risk with object/actors in the area of interest

7 Challenge the future However, drones have downsides Soldiers are removed from the horrors of war and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is very real danger of losing the deterrent that such horrors provide (cf. game mentality) Are operators becoming trigger happy with remote controlled armaments, situated as they are in complete safety, distant from the conflict zone (cf. incorrect judgment of necessity principle) Not so precise as predicted leading to increased collateral damage

8 Challenge the future Assumptions Focus in the usage of targeting systems in bello and not in the justice in the declaration of war (jus ad bellum)

9 Challenge the future Research Question in experiment How is moral perception affected by tele-operating a UAV? Specific judgements: necessity, proportionality, discrimination.

10 Challenge the future Two separate experiments 1.Distance in manipulated -> studying moral perception 2.Drone Endurance & Sensor Quality/type are manipulated -> studying quality of attack and bounding with object/actors Preferably using same environment

11 Challenge the future Experiment While tele-operating a system, systematically manipulate Proximity In the field with direct sight At a large distance with no direct sight Stressors/unexpected situations (or some other intervening variable) Many Little Type of Task Surveillance & Reconnaissance Engagement Using naïve (non-professional) subjects (Delft University)

12 Challenge the future What we measure, for example Experienced stress Experienced risk # of engagements After each engagement, freeze and question about necessity, proportionality and discrimination After each engagement, check whether order/action fits RoE/LoAC Ask for rationale for specific actions