Dehumanization: The ethical perspective

Abstract

To structure the debate on the ethical admissibility of "dehumanization" of warfare, e.g. by using drones, the distinction between evaluation rules and imputation rules seems to be helpful. Evaluation rules give information as to whether a certain behavior is obligatory, forbidden or permitted. From these rules, the rules that give information as to whether or not a person can actually be held responsible for a certain behavior must be distinguished; for this requires imputation.And without imputation of a behavior as an act (or omission) of a certain person, it is not even reasonable to apply the evaluation rules to this behavior. For it is by applying the imputation rules that the subject is determined to which the evaluation rules can then refer to. This also means that there are two categorically different avenues to shed light onto "dehumanized" behavior in war: It is possible that there are evaluation rules that forbid certain "dehumanized" behavior as a matter of principle; and it is possible that there are imputation rules, the violation of which could lead to persons successfully but unjustifiedly evading their own responsibility. The first avenue will be-after some introductory remarks in sections "Two Meanings of 'Dehumanization'" to "The Distinction Between Evaluation Rules and Imputation Rules"-examined below in sections "Ban on Usage of CertainWeapons andWeapon-Systems" to "Drones and 'Stealth'", while the second is then investigated in sections "The Distinction Between Combatants and Civilians" and "Problems of Imputation".