Utilitarian Ethics and Commercial Drone Regulation
This paper examines the ethical implications of commercial drone use through two philosophical lenses: Utilitarianism and Deontology. It identifies privacy invasion, public safety, and potential harm as the central ethical concerns, then evaluates how each theory handles them. The Utilitarian analysis weighs the benefits of drones — such as efficient delivery and aerial photography — against risks to privacy and safety, ultimately favoring stronger federal regulation. The Deontological view supports case-by-case FAA approval aligned with professional duty. The paper further considers how globalization and ethical relativism complicate both frameworks, concluding that a formal regulatory entity within the FAA offers the most consistent, equitable, and sustainable solution for governing commercial drone operations.
- Ethical Issues in Commercial Drone Use: Privacy, safety, and harm risks of commercial drones
- Two Traditional Ethical Theories: Utilitarian and Deontological views on drone ethics
- Ethical Relativism and Globalization: How globalization complicates each ethical resolution
- The Best Solution: Arguing for a formal FAA drone regulatory body
- Conclusion: Utilitarianism and FAA standardization as best approach
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clear application of two distinct ethical frameworks — Utilitarianism and Deontology — to a concrete, timely technology policy issue, making abstract theory accessible and grounded.
- Strong comparative structure: each framework is defined, applied, and then evaluated against real-world regulatory context, culminating in a reasoned conclusion about which is superior.
- Engages secondary dimensions (globalization, ethical relativism) that add analytical depth and demonstrate awareness of broader societal implications.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses applied ethical analysis — moving from descriptive identification of a problem to normative evaluation using competing theoretical frameworks. By grounding abstract philosophical positions (Utilitarian calculus, Deontological duty) in a specific real-world case (commercial drone regulation by the FAA), it demonstrates how ethical theory functions as a tool for policy reasoning rather than mere abstraction.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an overview of the ethical landscape around commercial drones, focusing on privacy and safety. It then presents two traditional ethical frameworks side by side, followed by a section on how globalization and ethical relativism affect each proposed solution. A dedicated "best solution" section synthesizes the analysis and argues for the Utilitarian approach. A brief conclusion restates the central recommendation. This five-part structure is well-suited to comparative ethics assignments at the undergraduate level.
Ethical Issues in Commercial Drone Use
The topic explored in this paper is the phenomenon of innovation outpacing regulation in the context of private and commercial drone use. Quite frequently in technological applications, innovations and availability outstrip regulation and user consistency — and drones offer a clear illustration of this problem.
The ethical issues pertaining to drones primarily involve privacy. Drones are a means of remotely achieving physical objectives by utilizing small, highly maneuverable objects controlled from vast distances. These devices first gained notoriety through their deployment by the United States military, where they were used to conduct assaults and gather intelligence. Although it is highly unlikely that commercial drones will be used for those same purposes, it is worth considering — especially in terms of ethics — that once in the hands of private individuals, drones can be configured to launch various forms of attack. Thus, one key ethical issue surrounding commercial drones is their potential to inflict harm, regardless of whatever purported good they may produce.
The larger concern is that drones can potentially impinge upon privacy (Wald, 2013). By collecting data about a particular person or business, drones can yield intelligence and personally identifiable information in ways that are more difficult to accomplish without them. People can effectively surveil one another remotely and with greater efficacy than is possible with conventional technology such as smartphones. Without a regulatory framework specific to drones, their commercial applications, and privacy, there is no limit to the ways they can intrude on individual privacy.
The regulation of drones in the United States is tenuous at best, and is handled by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA permits drones from flying above 400 feet in public airspace and offers approval on a case-by-case basis for any flying not expressly used for hobby purposes (Sterbenz, 2014). However, this entity is not expressly concerned with privacy. Several industries — including film and photography — already use drones for their recording capabilities, whether video or still photographs. Thus, the privacy issue remains salient for ordinary citizens. Other ethical concerns include safety and potential accidents when drones are flown too close to one another. Beyond surveillance, the most prominent commercial use case for drones is delivery services, based on the logic that investing in hardware capable of making repeated deliveries is cheaper than conventional means.
Two Traditional Ethical Theories
A Utilitarian analysis of the ethical implications of commercial drone use focuses on several key dimensions. Utilitarianism evaluates actions by the amount of good they produce, deeming an action ethical if its benefits outweigh its harms. In this case, drones used in public spaces enable videographers and photographers to capture footage from angles that would otherwise be too costly or inconvenient to access. Additionally, drones can be deployed to save lives and deliver healthcare supplies (Leiber, 2014). However, while obtaining such footage, operators could just as easily capture images of individuals in private or domestic settings, effectively obliterating those individuals' right to privacy. There is also the ever-present potential for drones to cause immediate harm by colliding with one another, with other objects in public spaces, or by launching some form of assault.
A Utilitarian perspective would weigh the good produced — aerial footage and goods delivery — against the potential harms: loss of privacy (Gershman, 2014), assault risk, and dangerous incidents. Given the current state of drone regulation, Utilitarian philosophy would likely discourage commercial drone use because those risks outweigh the benefits, particularly since people have been delivering goods and photographing public spaces for years without drones. This view could change significantly, however, if stricter regulations were incorporated regarding both privacy and dangerous drone applications — whether intentional or not. A Utilitarian perspective could only endorse commercial drones if the risks and consequences for privacy and safety violations were more clearly defined. This objective might be achieved through the establishment of a dedicated drone regulatory body within the FAA focused specifically on these issues.
A Deontologist, however, would likely favor the commercial application of drones, since deontologists are primarily concerned with the fulfillment of duty. If drones enable delivery employees to fulfill their primary duty — delivering goods faster and more efficiently — then a Deontologist would regard drones as a vital tool. Moreover, Deontologists would likely favor the FAA's current approach of permitting commercial use on a case-by-case basis, believing that each individual ruling would appropriately consider the specific duties and ramifications involved and permit or restrict drone use accordingly.
Conclusion
In summary, the central ethical issue pertaining to the commercial use of drones is privacy. When analyzed through the lenses of Utilitarianism and Deontology, the former offers a superior framework because it creates standardization. The most effective form of standardization would involve the creation of a dedicated entity within the FAA focused on privacy and safety issues related to commercial drone operations.
References
Belfiore, M. (2015). Drone makers seek traffic control. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-09/drone-makers-seek-traffic-control
Deloitte. (2014). Live from SXSW: The truth about drones. Retrieved from http://deloitte.wsj.com/cio/2014/03/11/live-from-sxsw-the-truth-about-drones/
Gershman, J. (2014). Sotomayor: Americans should be alarmed by spread of drones. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/09/12/justice-sotomayor-americans-should-be-alarmed-by-spread-of-drones/
Leiber, N. (2014). Using drones to make peace, not war. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-10-23/aid-groups-are-using-drones-to-save-lives
Nicas, J., & Pasztor, A. (2015). FAA proposes rules to allow commercial drone flights in U.S. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-issues-privacy-rules-for-government-drones-in-u-s
Sterbenz, C. (2014). Should we freak out about drones looking in our windows? Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/privacy-issues-with-commercial-drones-2014-9
Wald, M. L. (2013). Current laws may offer little shield against drones, senators are told. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/senate-panel-weighs-privacy-concerns-over-use-of-drones.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.