A principles-based model of ethical considerations in military decision making. (April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Reed, Gregory S; Petty, Mikel D; Jones, Nicholaos J; Morris, Anthony W; Ballenger, John P; Delugach, Harry S
• Is Part Of: Journal of defense modeling and simulation. Volume 13:Number 2(2016:Apr.)
• Page Start: 195
• Page End: 211
• Publication Date: 2016-04
• Subjects: Human behavior modeling -- decision analysis -- machine ethics -- modeling and simulation; Military art and science -- Computer simulation -- Periodicals; 355.0011305
• DOI: 10.1177/1548512915581213
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1548-5129

Abstract

When comparing alternative courses of action, modern military decision makers often must consider both the military effectiveness and the ethical consequences of the available alternatives. The basis, design, calibration, and performance of a principles-based computational model of ethical considerations in military decision making are reported in this article. The relative ethical violation (REV) model comparatively evaluates alternative military actions based upon the degree to which they violate contextually relevant ethical principles. It is based on a set of specific ethical principles deemed by philosophers and ethicists to be relevant to military courses of action. A survey of expert and non-expert human decision makers regarding the relative ethical violation of alternative actions for a set of specially designed calibration scenarios was conducted to collect data that was used to calibrate the REV model. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the survey showed that people, even experts, disagreed greatly amongst themselves regarding the scenarios' ethical considerations. Despite this disagreement, two significant results emerged. First, after calibration the REV model performed very well in terms of replicating the ethical assessments of human experts for the calibration scenarios. The REV model outperformed an earlier model that was based on tangible consequences rather than ethical principles, that earlier model performed comparably to human experts, the experts outperformed human non-experts, and the non-experts outperformed random selection of actions. All of these performance comparisons were measured quantitatively and confirmed with suitable statistical tests. Second, although humans tended to value some principles over others, none of the ethical principles involved—even the principle of not harming civilians—completely overshadowed all of the other principles.