| While privatization is not a new concept for the U.S. military, the public debate on military privatization is unfortunately limited, focused on legal, financial, and pragmatic concerns, such as oversight. What is missing is a critical assessment of the ethical dimensions of military privatization in general; more specifically, in light of the increased reliance upon armed contractors, it must be asked whether it is morally permissible for governments to employ them at all. This is what this project intends to answer.;To this end, I will explore four areas that highlight the ethical implications of using armed contractors: (a) How Armed Contractors are Distinct from Soldiers, (b) The Commodification of Force, (c) The Belligerent Equality of Combatants, and (d) The Impact of Armed Contractors on the Professional Military. While these arguments stand alone, they are together sufficient to capture and demonstrate the moral intuition that, all things considered, it is normally morally impermissible to use armed contractors, except in extreme circumstances.;This is of course a consequentialist view. Refraining from using armed contractors results, all things considered equally, in a better state of affairs. States should not normally revert to employing armed contractors. The costs, financial and otherwise, outweigh the benefits of their employment. Only in extreme circumstances, where the benefits of their use counterbalance the costs, would armed contractors become a morally viable option.;Finally, I offer some observations on the current use of armed contractors as well as implications for their further employment. I recognize that outsourcing force will continue, so I propose some changes to account for the problems of commodification, belligerent equality, and the challenge to the military profession. |
