Search

This Commentary critiques an extremely relational view of robot moral status, drawing out its practical implications for ethics and law. It also suggests next steps for AI ethics if extremely relational reasoning is compelling. Section I introduces the topic, distinguishing an ‘extremely relational’ view from more moderate relational views. Section II illustrates extremely relational views using the example of embodiment. Section III explores practical implications of extremely relational views for ethics and law. Section IV offers possible responses to extreme relationism. Section V concludes by suggesting next steps for AI ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Commentary critiques Paul Showler’s combination view of robot moral status, which combines sophisticated cognitive capacities like consciousness with highly valued machine-human relationships. Showler holds that a combined approach carries the advantage of more fully accounting for ordinary folk psychology views about of what it means to have moral standing and be a person. This commentary paper is largely sympathetic to Showler, but argues for a stronger view: being a person is a cluster concept that can include a combination of different possible sufficient conditions, none of which is necessary. What must be constrained, then, is the strong claim that a quality is necessary for personhood. Since most approaches that appeal to sophisticated cognitive capacities make the strong claim, they require constraint. Since most approaches that appeal to highly valued relationships, do not make the stronger claim, they generally do not require constraint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the development of increasingly sophisticated sociable robots, robot-human relationships are being transformed. Not only can sociable robots furnish emotional support and companionship for humans, humans can also form relationships with robots that they value highly. It is natural to ask, do robots that stand in close relationships with us have any moral standing over and above their purely instrumental value as means to human ends. We might ask our question this way, 'Are there ways we can act towards robots that would be wrong to the robot?' To address this, Part I lays out standard approaches to moral standing: appealing to intrinsic properties, human responses, and values inhering in relationships. Part II explores the third, relational strategy in detail. Looking beyond Western analyses, it considers Eastern philosophy and the environmental philosophy of 'deep ecology' and extends these approaches to sociable robots. Part III examines practical implications for the case of Samantha, a sex robot that was allegedly raped. Part IV identifies and replies to objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]