Argument Analysis Assignment
Professor Nisha Shah
February 1, 2013
Bradley Strawser comes back to clarify a few things about the morality of drone warfare. In a previous article in The Guardian, Strawser’s words were manipulated, wrongly interpreted, and morphed into portraying his ideologies as pro-drone warfare under any condition and that drone warfare had no immoral side to it. However, Strawser corrects this misinterpretation.
Though the topic of morality and drone warfare is a sensitive and difficult one, Strawser seems to do his best to think rationally, logically, and fairly about the issue, and to present his beliefs as clearly as possible. After reading the entire article it is noticeable that Strawser focuses on three main points: drones can be morally preferable if the attack is morally justified, the drones are precise in their attacks, and if they do less harm to their operator.
Strawser’s does not cite any official studies, articles, or statistics to support his claims but merely uses opinion and his own knowledge. He stresses the importance of morally justifying acts of war before attacking, “if a military action is morally justified, we are also morally bound to ensure that it is carried out with as little harm to innocent people as possible.” This is the basis of his argument. Even though a drone may be immoral in principle, just like landmines, as he states in his article, since it is another weapon that cannot distinguish from friend or foe, innocent and guilty, one may use the weapon when necessary. Augustine is quoted, "let necessity, therefore, and not your will, slay the enemy who fights against you” meaning that even though killing and taking a life is a regrettable, distasteful act, there are some instances in modern warfare which calls for killing as a means of survival as well as for the collective greater good of the people.
Though Strawser presents a...