[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In Boeing's case, their actions seem to be non-malicious, although someone may disagree, arguing that they've put their business over people's safety.

Let's see another case: Killing a group of terrorist inside a building using hellfire missiles from a drone, which inadvertently also kill some civilians nearby.
If this action is viewed from the point of view of the terrorists or their allies, it's malicious.
If this action is viewed from the point of view of the civilians, it's non-malicious.
If this action is viewed from the point of view of the actors, it's clearly non-malicious. Can it be otherwise?
If this action is viewed from the point of view of bystanders or other people not directly affected, it may be mixed.

[alancalverd]

The whole point of the MCAS system was to improve safety by taking immediate action if the pilot ignored the one tiny idiosyncratic behavior of the plane! After all, it works brilliantly for military tankers where you need to maintain controlled flight whilst the fuel is sloshing around at takeoff or being transferred to the fighters, so why not use it for the simple job of keeping the angle of attack inside the flight envelope at takeoff for an airliner? I'm sure the military love it, but I'm also sure they train with it and know how to switch it off. We await further details of why they (or the FAA) didn't insist on type training, or why EASA (at your considerable expense) didn't spot the omission.   

Apropos collateral casualties: no, they are not the victims of malice but of circumstance, though the enemy will claim  malice. There are a couple of good films on the subject, my favorite being "Good Kill"  with Ethan Hawke, and "Eye in the Sky" (Helen Mirren) has almost the same plot, a year later. What they both ignore, however, is that  drone strikes can minimise collateral damage on both sides compared with any other means of eliminating a target. This makes them objectively more moral than manned bombing, but the hero of Good Kill confuses it with "one on one" dogfighting - different objective!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If our enemies use the same tactic against us, what could be our moral defense/justification for our usage of technology against them?
I don't think that result of the battle is adequate to justify that the winner is morally better than the loser.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are a couple of good films on the subject, my favorite being "Good Kill"  with Ethan Hawke, and "Eye in the Sky" (Helen Mirren) has almost the same plot, a year later.

Those situations are where our exercises on morality using trolley problems become fruitful. Would you let those terrorists go to save some nearby civilians, in the expense of much more other civilians' lives? The decision has time constraint, hence having a thought about it beforehand can give us a favor.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A philosopher is a parasite. All he has done so far is to waste your time.

In case you have some time to waste.

[alancalverd]

"To say a person ought to do X implies that he can do X "  Obvious rubbish. Why bother with the rest of the lecture?

[alancalverd]

If our enemies use the same tactic against us, what could be our moral defense/justification for our usage of technology against them?
I don't think that result of the battle is adequate to justify that the winner is morally better than the loser.

The moral argument begins and ends with the casus belli.

Why is he an enemy? If he has attacked us, fighting back passes the tests, and the sooner we can end the conflict with the least casualties, the better.

Why would we want to attack him? The only moral justfication would be to pre-empt a greater wrong or to come to the aid of a friend.

The winner is the stronger or  better fighter - nothing to do with morality.

[alancalverd]

Those situations are where our exercises on morality using trolley problems become fruitful.

No, they are irrelevant. In a war situation you have short and long term objectives and material constraints. Drones give you a previously unthinkable flexibility of who to kill and when, but don't answer any long term objectives. This was eloquently pointed out by H G Wells'  The War in the Air, published in 1908, years before military aviation became practicable.

[charles1948]

Those situations are where our exercises on morality using trolley problems become fruitful.

No, they are irrelevant. In a war situation you have short and long term objectives and material constraints. Drones give you a previously unthinkable flexibility of who to kill and when, but don't answer any long term objectives. This was eloquently pointed out by H G Wells'  The War in the Air, published in 1908, years before military aviation became practicable.

Do you think H G Wells should be on relied for guidance.  Didn't he write a book, in which he envisioned that pilots of future military aircraft carrying atomic bombs, would have to bite the grease off the bomb-fuse, before throwing it out of the plane, onto the target?

I'm pretty sure that's correct.

[alancalverd]

His vision of technology was fairly limited to current knowledge and experimentation, but his grasp of the underlying limitations of aerial warfare was accurate and well ahead of its time. From the Wright Brothers to the day before Hiroshima, air combat and bombing could only be the precursor to infantry advance, and up to about 1915  aerial bombardment did indeed consist mainly of pilots chucking grenades over the side. Seven years is a very long time in military aviation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No, they are irrelevant. In a war situation you have short and long term objectives and material constraints. Drones give you a previously unthinkable flexibility of who to kill and when, but don't answer any long term objectives. This was eloquently pointed out by H G Wells'  The War in the Air, published in 1908, years before military aviation became practicable.

I was referring to unexpected costs which only reveal right before the plan is executed, such as unaware civilians coming closer to the location. Will you proceed to execute the plan, or cancel it?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"To say a person ought to do X implies that he can do X "  Obvious rubbish. Why bother with the rest of the lecture?

Why is it so?
Can someone be expected to do something that he/she can't?
Take the original trolley problem for example. If the person on the train is disabled, hence has no power to pull the lever, can we say that he/she ought to pull the lever? Can we blame him/her for not pulling the lever?

[alancalverd]

You ought to be able to walk. That is what you were built and trained to do. And it is the reason why you complain if you have broken your leg, and can't walk.

You ought to feed your children, but if you have spent all your money on slow horses and fast women, you can't.

Philosophers often use imprecision instead of logic, and wonder why they come up with  absurd answers. It's excusable if your native language is French, because the vocabulary is limited, but English has an unlimited vocabulary and permits very precise shades of meaning.

There is no implication of ability in "ought".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is no implication of ability in "ought".

You ought to defuse an active bomb in public place if you can. If you can't do you still ought to?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You ought to be able to walk.

You ought to learn or try to walk. But if the result is that you still can't walk and it's not caused by your own decisions, it's not due to your moral failure.

[alancalverd]

There is no implication of ability in "ought".

You ought to defuse an active bomb in public place if you can. If you can't do you still ought to?

Absolutely not.
The original statement said that duty implies ability. The reverse is true: noblesse oblige etc., but your duty to pay taxes doesn't guarantee your ability to do so.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Absolutely not.
The original statement said that duty implies ability. The reverse is true: noblesse oblige etc., but your duty to pay taxes doesn't guarantee your ability to do so.

Your inability frees you up from your duty. You ought not pay taxes while you can't. How can you?

[alancalverd]

Not true. Income and corporation tax are based on notional profit. If you have spent the profits on drink and drugs, you still have to pay the tax. Unless, of course, you are the President of the USA and owe money to dangerous people, in which case they will lend you more to pay your lawyers to argue that you don't have to pay any tax.

But the point I forgot to  make was that it is not a good idea for an amateur to attempt to defuse a bomb. Nor, if your leg is  broken, should you try to walk on it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Income and corporation tax are based on notional profit.

So a homeless man without obvious income or profit ought not pay taxes. Do Sentinelese ought to pay taxes?

If you have spent the profits on drink and drugs, you still have to pay the tax.

I ought to pay my taxes before I spent my profit. It implies that I could have paid those taxes then.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity