Morally opposed? A theory of public attitudes and emerging military technologies

Abstract

Military technology does not exist in a vacuum; it is mediated by difficult choices about development and use. Public attitudes influence these choices, but emerging technologies present a challenge: assessing public opinion without a clear picture of the technology's use. Focusing on autonomous weapon systems, we argue that attitude stability depends on moral conviction and concern with inherent characteristics or outcomes. Combining these dimensions into four reasoning categories creates a new framework for attitudes toward emerging technologies, validated with two Cooperative Congressional Election Study surveys. We find that moral conviction is prevalent, current opposition heterogeneous, and some attitudes depend on outcomes, especially civilian protection.

Keywords

autonomous weapons military technology moral conviction public opinion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Reisner

Waxman

(2014) Adapting the law of armed conflict to autonomous weapon systems. International Law Studies 90: 386–411.

Arkin

(2013) Lethal autonomous systems and the plight of the non-combatant. AISB Quarterly 137: 4–12.

Australia, Canada, Estonia, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States (2024) Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems – prohibitions and other regulatory measures on the basis of international humanitarian law (“IHL”). United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. August 26.

Baum

Groeling

(2010) Reality asserts itself: Public opinion on Iraq and the elasticity of rseality. International Organization 64(3): 443–479.

Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (2021) Stop killer robots. Available from: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/take-action/join-the-campaign/ .

Carpenter

(2014) Who’s Afraid of Killer Robots? (And Why). The Washington Post, 30 May. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/30/whos-afraid-of-killer-robots-and-why/.

Carpenter

Montgomery

(2020) The stopping power of norms. International Security 45(2): 140–169.

Caverley

(2014) Democratic Militarism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Department of Defense (2012) Directive on Autonomy in Weapons Systems, Number 3000.09. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.

10.

Evans

(2012) At war with the robots. Hofstra Law Review 41: 697–733.

11.

Finnemore

(1996) Norms, culture, and world politics. International Organization 50(2): 325–347.

12.

Gartner

(2008) The multiple effects of casualties on public support for war. American Political Science Review 102(1): 95–106.

13.

Gartzke

(2001) Democracy and the preparation for war. International Studies Quarterly 45(3): 467–484.

14.

Gelpi

Feaver

Reifler

(2009) Paying the Human Costs of War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

15.

Hague Convention (1907) Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Its Annex. The Hague.

16.

Haidt

(2008) The emotional dog and its rational tail. In: Adler

Rips

(eds) Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1024–1052.

17.

Haidt

Björklund

Murphy

(2000) Moral Dumbfounding: When Intuition Finds No Reason. Unpublished manuscript. Available from: http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/manuscripts/haidt.bjorklund.working-paper.when%20intuition%20finds%20no%20reason.pub603.doc.

18.

Horowitz

(2016) Public opinion and the politics of the killer robots debate. Research and Politics 3(1): 1–8.

19.

Horowitz

Kreps

Fuhrmann

(2016) Separating fact from fiction in the debate over drone proliferation. International Security 41(2): 2–42.

20.

Horowitz

Kahn

Macdonald

, et al. (2024) Adopting AI: How familiarity breeds both trust and contempt. AI & Society 39(4): 1721–1735.

21.

Human Rights Watch (2014) Advancing the Debate on Killer Robots. New York: Human Rights Watch.

22.

Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic (2012) Losing humanity. Human Rights Watch. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/11/19/losing-humanity/case-against-killer-robots.

23.

Ipsos (2019) Six in ten (61%) respondents across 26 countries oppose the use of lethal autonomous weapons systems. Ipsos, 22 January. Available from: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/human-rights-watch-six-in-ten-oppose-autonomous-weapons.

24.

Ipsos (2021) Global Survey Highlights Continued Opposition to Fully Autonomous Weapons. Ipsos, 2 February. Available from: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/global-survey-highlights-continued-opposition-fully-autonomous-weapons.

25.

Keck

Sikkink

(1998) Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

26.

Kertzer

Powers

Rathbun

, et al. (2014) Moral support. Journal of Politics 76(3): 825–840.

27.

Kober

(2008) The Israel Defense Forces in the Second Lebanon War. Journal of Strategic Studies 31(1): 3–40.

28.

Kreps

(2014) Flying under the radar. Research and Politics 1(1): 1–7.

29.

Kreps

Maxey

(2018) Mechanisms of morality. Journal of Conflict Resolution 62(8): 1814–1842.

30.

Kriner

(2010) After the Rubicon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Kriner

Shen

(2014) Responding to war on Capitol Hill: Battlefield Casualties, congressional response, and public support for the war in Iraq. American Journal of Political Science 58(1): 157–174.

32.

Lee

(2024) Sixty Countries Endorse ‘blueprint’ for AI use in military; China opts out. Reuters, 10 September. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/south-korea-summit-announces-blueprint-using-ai-military-2024-09-10/.

33.

Luttrell

Togans

(2021) The stability of moralized attitudes over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 47(4): 551–564.

34.

Macdonald

Schneider

(2015) Presidential risk orientation and force employment decisions. Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(3): 511–536.

35.

Merom

(2003) How Democracies Lose Small Wars. New York: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Press

Sagan

Valentino

(2013) Atomic aversion. American Political Science Review 107(1): 188–206.

37.

Rathbun

Stein

(2020) Greater goods: Morality and attitudes toward the use of nuclear weapons. Journal of Conflict Resolution 64(5): 787–816.

38.

Rathbun

Stein

(2020) Greater goods. Journal of Conflict Resolution 64(5): 787–816.

39.

Rosendorf

Smetana

Vranka

(2022) Autonomous weapons and ethical judgments. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 28(2): 177–183.

40.

Rosendorf

Smetana

Vranka

(2024) Algorithmic aversion? Experimental evidence on the elasticity of public attitudes to killer robots. Security Studies 33(1): 115–145.

41.

Ryan

(2014) Reconsidering moral issues in politics. Journal of Politics 76(2): 380–397.

42.

Ryan

(2019) Actions versus consequences in political arguments. Journal of Politics 81(2): 426–440.

43.

Sagan

Valentino

(2017) Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran. International Security 42(1): 41–79.

44.

Saunders

Sechser

(2010) The army you have. International Studies Quarterly 54(2): 481–511.

45.

Schaffner

Ansolabehere

(2015) Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2014. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Dataverse V3.

46.

Schmitt

(2013) Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law. Harvard National Security Journal 4: 1–37.

47.

Skitka

(2010) The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4(4): 267–281.

48.

Skitka

Hanson

Morgan

, et al. (2021) The psychology of moral conviction. Annual Review of Psychology 72: 347–366.

49.

Skitka

Morgan

(2014) The social and political implications of moral conviction. Advances in Political Psychology 35(1): 95–110.

50.

State Department (2024) Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy.

51.

Tanner

Medin

Iliev

(2008) Influence of deontological versus consequentialist orientations on act choices and framing effects. European Journal of Social Psychology 38: 757–769.

52.

UNIDIR (2015) The Weaponization of Increasing Autonomous Technologies. Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.

53.

Walsh

(2015) Precision weapons, civilian casualties, and support for the use of force. Political Psychology 36(5): 507–523.

54.

Young

Carpenter

(2018) Does science fiction affect political fact? International Studies Quarterly 62: 562–576.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.51 MB