Robotics Reference
In-Depth Information
even self-reproduction. “If our machines attain this level of behavioral
sophistication,” Laing reasons that
...itmayfinallynotbeamisstoaskwhethertheyhavenotbecome
so like us that we have no further right to command them for our
own purposes, and so should quietly emancipate them. [21]
The traditional view of robots is that they will be created in order to min-
imize or eliminate the tedium and risks we encounter when performing
certain tasks. Put simply, there are things most of us do that we would
rather not do. The robot, then, is intrinsically a vehicle for the accom-
plishment of jobs that are, for whatever reason, undesirable or unaccept-
able to humans. This is hardly a good basis from which to launch an
ethical code for the treatment of robots, especially if such a code is go-
ing to be based on the notion of treating others as we would have them
treat us.
Paul Levinson proposes a single, overriding ethical principle to guide
our conduct towards all robots and artificial life forms, a fundamental,
inalienable right for all such beings. “If the entity is sentient, or judged
to be sentient by whatever cognitive criteria we use to make such as-
sessments, then it is entitled to the best ethical treatment we accord hu-
mans.” [22]
There is also a view that robots may be entitled to even more consider-
ation than we usually give our comrade humans, this because robots are
our creation. The argument offered in support of this thesis is that, when
we behave unethically towards another person we are hurting a member
of our species, whereas when we behave unethically towards an artifi-
cially intelligent, living entity, we throw dirt in the face of the thousands
of years of thought and research and experiment and work that led to its
creation. Which is the greater sin is a matter for philosophers.
The extent to which robots are deserving of ethical treatment can
be viewed not only from the standpoint of what they are, but also on
the basis of what intellectual and cultural content they communicate.
Joanna Bryson and Phil Kime compare the value of a person with that
of an artefact that stores or generates more intellectual information than
that person. Thus, a robot that stores the entire works of Shakespeare,
and performances of all the symphonies of Mozart, and images of all
the paintings of van Gogh,...has more creative, cultural and intellec-
tual value than a human ignoramus who has not an ounce of culture
in his body. Bryson and Kime therefore ask: “Should people be al-
Search WWH ::




Custom Search