20 July 2014
The Morality of Warfare: Case Study; Drone Warfare Advancements in warfare technology and weaponry have been the defining factors in battle since the dawn of civilization. The one with the bigger gun usually wins. This is a fact that hasn’t changed much since the beginnings of warfare and holds true today and in today’s world Drones have become the next warfare advantage. Along with any advancement in warfare weaponry comes a very heated and controversial discussion about its actual real-world utilization. Many argue that the use of Drones in war is unmoral and unethical. This paper aims to take a closer look at both sides of this argument. First, I will establish and explain the moral arguments against the use of drone warfare, then the second half of the article will be in response to such claims and give the moral reasons behind the pro-drone argument. First and foremost of the anti-drone discussion is the fact that Drones are seen to be fundamentally in contradiction of international law: 
 Amnesty International stated that that “deliberate killings by drones […] very likely violate the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life and may constitute extrajudicial executions.” The UN suggested focused effort to maintain and preserve the security of international laws in its entirety, in response to the use of drones. This incorporates, obviously, international human rights and humanitarian standards that seem to be thrown out the window when dealing with drone strikes in warfare. Equipped and fortified remotely controlled drones are commonly used external to the outlined skirmish zones. Consequently, the international human rights law would be the appropriate and valid law, in which requires considerably more severe/strict guidelines for the use of deadly force. Nevertheless, many feel as though the international human rights laws have been