Lethal autonomous weapons systems, revulsion, and respect
Open accessAbstract
The potential for the use of artificial intelligence in developing lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) has received a good deal of attention from ethicists. Lines of argument in favor of and against developing and deploying LAWS have already become hardened. In this paper, I examine one strategy for skirting these familiar positions, namely to base an anti-LAWS argument not on claims that LAWS inevitably fail to respect human dignity, but on a different kind of respect, namely respect for public opinion and conventional attitudes (which Robert Sparrow claims are strongly anti-LAWS). My conclusion is that this sort of respect for conventional attitudes does provide some reason for actions and policies, but that it is actually a fairly weak form of respect, that is often override by more direct concerns about respect for humanity or dignity. By doing this, I explain the intuitive force of the claim that one should not disregard public attitudes, but also justify assigning a relatively weak role when other kinds of respect are involved.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Autonomy and decision-support systems in military contexts have destabilizing potential, including novel escalation pathways, shifts in responsibility, and risks to strategic stability.
“Parallel literatures in security studies and AI ethics have highlighted the destabilizing potential of autonomy and decision-support systems in military contexts, including novel escalation pathways, shifts in responsibility, and risks to strategic stability (Dean, 2022; Renic, 2023; Montgomery and Nelson, 2025; Kühn and Williams, 2025).”
From Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology (2026) · cites this paper as Dean, 2022
In “Method: Moral debate about LAWS” (page unavailable), Dean discusses autonomous military weapons and the ethical risks of assigning targeting decisions to systems without human oversight. That supports the concern about transferring decisions away from humans, but the passages do not address decision-support systems, novel escalation pathways, or risks to strategic stability. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBy shifting life-and-death decisions to machine algorithms, LAWs remove the moral shock that would otherwise accompany the use of force, reframing violence as a 'reasonable' course of action.
“By shifting life-and-death decisions to machine algorithms, LAWs remove the moral shock that would otherwise accompany the use of force, reframing violence as a “reasonable” course of action (Dean, 2022).”
From Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology (2026) · cites this paper as Dean, 2022
The Method section describes LAWS as moving decisions about targeting humans outside direct human control. But the Results section discusses possible revulsion at using LAWS, not a removal of moral shock or a reframing of violence as a “reasonable” course of action. The paper therefore supports the shift in decision-making, but not the claimed psychological effect. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Arkin R. (2010). The case for ethical autonomy in unmanned systems. J. Military Ethics 9, 332– 341. 10.1080/15027570.2010.536402 · DOI
- Asaro P. (2012). On banning autonomous weapon systems: human rights, automation, and the dehumanization of lethal decision-making. Int. Rev. Red Cross 94, 687– 709. 10.1017/S1816383112000768 · DOI · Paper page
- Darwall S. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics 88, 36– 49. 10.1086/292054 · DOI
- Gubrud M. (2014). Stopping killer robots. Bull. Atomic Sci. 70, 32– 42. 10.1177/0096340213516745 · DOI
- Heyns C. (2017). Autonomous weapons in armed conflict and the right to a dignified life: an African perspective. South Afr. J. Hum. Rights 33, 46– 71. 10.1080/02587203.2017.1303903 · DOI
- Hill T. (2000). Respect, Pluralism, and Justice: Kantian Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Jenkins R. Purvis D. (2016). Robots and respect: a response to Robert Sparrow. Ethics Int. Affairs 30, 391– 400. 10.1017/S0892679416000277 · DOI
- Kahn L. (2022). Lethal autonomous weapons systems, jus in bello, and respect for human dignity. Cybersecurity and Privacy, a section of the journal Frontiers in Big Data. PMC9500208 36156937
- Kass L. (1997). The wisdom of repugnance. New Republic 32, 17– 26. 11654974
- Skerker M. Purves D. Jenkins R. (2020). Autonomous weapons systems and the moral equality of combatants. Ethics Inform. Technol. 22, 197– 209. 10.1007/s10676-020-09528-0 · DOI
- Sparrow R. (2016). Robots and respect: assessing the case against autonomous weapons systems. Ethics Int. Affairs. 30, 93– 116. 10.1017/S0892679415000647 · DOI
- Wood A. (2008). Kantian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology
Wang, Y., Li, P., & Liu, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1646601 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dean, R.
- Affiliations
- United States Naval Academy (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dean, Richard
- Venue
- Frontiers in Big Data
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2022-10-20
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 991459-991459
- ISSN
- 2624-909X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9632845
- OpenAlex
- W4306884682
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Big Data (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › War, Ethics, and Justification
- Keywords
- autonomous weapons, AI ethics, human dignity, respect for humanity, revulsion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
