Robotics Reference
In-Depth Information
lowed to die to preserve it [the robot]?” [23] This question implies
an extreme position, but the point is well taken. Such a robot can
certainly be argued to contribute more to society than would an uncul-
tured ignoramus.
Bryson and Kime support their position by pointing out that re-
sources are spent to preserve the
Mona Lisa
, resources that could, in the-
ory, be spent on medicine or food. In other words, an artefact (the
Mona
Lisa
) is perceived by society as being of greater value, culturally and in-
tellectually, than the lives of those poor souls who could be saved from
starvation or deadly disease by the money spent on the artefact's preserva-
tion and security. Shocking though this is, it is a fact of life that artefacts
and money in modern society are often valued more highly than human
life and well-being, a fact also evidenced by the more lenient sentences
often meted out by the courts to thugs who beat up old ladies than the
sentences given for bank robbery. And if the contents of a bank vault
are more important than the well-being of an old lady, surely one can
legitimately argue that a culturally and intellectually rich robot should
be valued at least as highly as a pet cat or dog, and should be treated no
less well. It is not a big step from this conclusion to an acceptance of
the notion that some intelligent robots will be of such creative value to
society that they are deserving of even greater rights than some people.
In the debate on robot consciousness and the ethical treatment of
robots, a comparison is often drawn between robots and animals, for ex-
ample our pets. The basis of this comparison lies in the question “Should
we not treat robots at least as well as we treat our pets?” In Chapter 10 we
discussed the relationships people develop with their virtual pets such as
Tamagotchis. As to the ethical treatment of robots, we may draw a com-
parison between our treatment of virtual pets and our behaviour towards
our animal pets. This comparison inspired the title of a 2004 article in
the
Christian Science Monitor
: “If you kick a robotic dog is it wrong?”
And if kicking a robot dog is ethically wrong, how about removing its
batteries? Remember the injunction motion filed by Martine Rothblatt
to prevent a corporation from disconnecting an intelligent computer.
11
Who Is Responsible When Robots Do Good and Evil?
Bound up with the question of whether or not robots can have free will
is the argument over who is responsible when robots do good and evil—
11
See the section “The Legal Rights of Robots” earlier in this chapter.
