Robotics Reference
In-Depth Information
robots have consciousness, is it reasonable for us to argue that, because
we gave them their ability to think for themselves, we should be able to
command them to do our bidding, to enslave them? The answers to all
these questions, surely, should be “no”, for the same moral reasons that
we ought not enslave our children even though they owe us their very
existence and their ability to think. And if robots are free to lead normal
lives, whatever “normal” will come to mean for robot citizens, will they
be able to claim social benefits, or free medical care and education, or
unemployment benefits?
When robots possess consciousness and feelings, in fact when they
possess the full range of personal capacities and potential of human be-
ings, will they have the same rights that most humans do now, such
as those listed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of
1948? Article Four of the UN Declaration states that no-one shall be
held in slavery or servitude, but is not one of the very purposes of robot-
ics to provide assistants to do our drudge work? And Article Sixteen of
the UN Declaration gives the right to marry and start a family—would
we deny these rights to robots?
What of political rights, the right to free speech, the rights prescribed
by democracy? Should vociferous robo-lobbyists not be allowed to pres-
sure national governments to fund more facilities for robots, such as ro-
bot memory banks (libraries and schools), robot repair centres (hospi-
tals), and other robot-oriented services about which we have not yet even
dreamed? If there are sufficient robots in our country with the right to
vote, might they have enough votes to turn out the rascals who are in
government, or even to run for public office themselves? And will they
have their own robo-political parties?
Freedom from slavery and the right to liberty (subject, of course, to
the robot not breaking any laws) raise the question of how far we can
reasonably go in attempting to secure the well-being of self-modifying
robots, and to prevent them from modifying themselves in ways that
could lead them to cause us harm. Should we keep a weather eye on
what our robots are doing at all times? This should not be difficult to
achieve if we employ “nanny” robots for this purpose.
Would it be infringing a robot's rights if it is we who decide what is
good for the robots and what is not, and how the robots should want
to treat us? Peter Suber answers this question with reference to robots
harming us and bringing harm to themselves, addressing the issue of
whether it would be paternalistic of us to prevent robots from self-harm.
