Suzanne Tolmeijer
Abraham Bernstein
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Increasingly complex and autonomous systems require machine ethics to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks to society arising from the new technology. It is challenging to decide which type of ethical theory to employ and how to implement it effectively. This survey provides a threefold contribution. First, it introduces a trimorphic taxonomy to analyze machine ethics implementations with respect to their object (ethical theories), as well as their nontechnical and technical aspects. Second, an exhaustive selection and description of relevant works is presented. Third, applying the new taxonomy to the selected works, dominant research patterns, and lessons for the field are identified, and future directions for research are suggested.
- David Abel, James MacGlashan, and Michael L. Littman. 2016. Reinforcement learning as a framework for ethical decision making. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop: AI, Ethics, and Society, Vol. 16. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 02.Google Scholar
- Colin Allen, Iva Smit, and Wendell Wallach. 2005. Artificial morality: Top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid approaches. Ethics Inf. Technol. 7, 3 (2005), 149--155.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson. 2008. EthEl: Toward a principled ethical eldercare robot. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall 2008 Symposium on AI in Eldercare: New Solutions to Old Problems. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 4--11.Google Scholar
- Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson. 2010. Robot be good. Sci. Am. 303, 4 (2010), 72--77.Google Scholar
- Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson. 2018. GenEth: A general ethical dilemma analyzer. J. Behavi. Robot. 9, 1 (2018), 337--357.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Anderson, Susan Leigh Anderson, and Chris Armen. 2004. Towards machine ethics. In Proceedings of the AAAI-04 Workshop on Agent Publishers: Theory and Practice. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 2--7.Google Scholar
- Michael Anderson, Susan Leigh Anderson, and Chris Armen. 2006. MedEthEx: A prototype medical ethics advisor. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Volume 2 (IAAI’06). AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1759--1765.Google Scholar
- M. Anderson, S. L. Anderson, and V. Berenz. 2019. A value-driven eldercare robot: Virtual and physical instantiations of a case-supported principle-based behavior paradigm. Proc. IEEE 107, 3 (2019), 526--540.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. C. Arkin. 2007. Governing Lethal Behavior: Embedding Ethics in a Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Robot Architecture. GVU Technical Report GIT-GVU-07-11, S. 1--117. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- R. C. Arkin. 2008. Governing Lethal Behavior: Embedding Ethics in a Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Robot Architecture-Part III: Representational and Architectural Considerations. Technical Report. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- R. C. Arkin. 2008. Governing ethical behavior: Embedding an ethical controller in a hybrid deliberative-reactive robot architecture—Part II: Formalization for ethical control. In Proceedings of the 1st Artificial General Intelligence Conference 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- R. C. Arkin. 2008. Governing lethal behavior: Embedding ethics in a hybrid deliberative/reactive robot architecture part I: Motivation and philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’08). ACM, New York, NY, 121--128. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349839Google Scholar
- Konstantine Arkoudas, Selmer Bringsjord, and Paul Bello. 2005. Toward ethical robots via mechanized deontic logic. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Machine Ethics. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 17--23.Google Scholar
- Stuart Armstrong. 2015. Motivated value selection for artificial agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop: AI and Ethics, Vol. 92. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 12--20.Google Scholar
- Kevin D. Ashley and Bruce M. McLaren. 1994. A CBR knowledge representation for practical ethics. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on Advances in Case-Based Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, 180--197.Google Scholar
- Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2007. Action-based alternating transition systems for arguments about action. In Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 7. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 24--29.Google Scholar
- Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2008. Addressing moral problems through practical reasoning. J. Appl. Logic 6, 2 (2008), 135--151.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The moral machine experiment. Nature 563, 7729 (2018), 59.Google Scholar
- Meisam Azad-Manjiri. 2014. A new architecture for making moral agents based on C4. 5 decision tree algorithm. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci. 6, 5 (2014), 50.Google Scholar
- Chitta Baral. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Seth D. Baum. 2020. Social choice ethics in artificial intelligence. AI 8 Soc. 35 (2020), 165--176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0760-1.Google Scholar
- Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- T. J. M. Bench-Capon. 2020. Ethical approaches and autonomous systems. Artif. Intell. 281 (2020), 103239. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103239Google ScholarCross Ref
- Trevor Bench-Capon, Katie Atkinson, and Alison Chorley. 2005. Persuasion and value in legal argument. J. Logic Comput. 15, 6 (2005), 1075--1097.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor Bench-Capon and Giovanni Sartor. 2003. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif. Intell. 150, 1-2 (2003), 97--143.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oliver Bendel. 2019. Handbuch Maschinenethik. Springer.Google Scholar
- Fiona Berreby, Gauvain Bourgne, and Jean-Gabriel Ganascia. 2015. Modelling moral reasoning and ethical responsibility with logic programming. In Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, 532--548.Google Scholar
- Fiona Berreby, Gauvain Bourgne, and Jean-Gabriel Ganascia. 2017. A declarative modular framework for representing and applying ethical principles. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 96--104.Google Scholar
- Simon Blackburn. 2002. Being Good: A Short Introduction to Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Simon Blackburn. 2016. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Jean-François Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, and Iyad Rahwan. 2016. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352, 6293 (2016), 1573--1576.Google Scholar
- Vincent Bonnemains, Claire Saurel, and Catherine Tessier. 2018. Embedded ethics: Some technical and ethical challenges. Ethics Inf. Technol. 20, 1 (2018), 41--58.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Bostrom. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- David Bourget and David J. Chalmers. 2014. What do philosophers believe? Philos. Stud. 170, 3 (2014), 465--500.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Selmer Bringsjord and Joshua Taylor. 2012. Introducing divine-command robot ethics. In Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implication of Robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MA, 85--108.Google Scholar
- Miles Brundage. 2014. Limitations and risks of machine ethics. Journal of Experimental 8 Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 26, 3 (2014), 355--372.Google ScholarCross Ref
- José-Antonio Cervantes, Luis-Felipe Rodríguez, Sonia López, and Félix Ramos. 2013. A biologically inspired computational model of moral decision making for autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics 8 Cognitive Computing (ICCI* CC’13). IEEE, New York, NY, 111--117.Google ScholarCross Ref
- José-Antonio Cervantes, Luis-Felipe Rodríguez, Sonia López, Félix Ramos, and Francisco Robles. 2016. Autonomous agents and ethical decision-making. Cogn. Comput. 8, 2 (2016), 278--296.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ying Chen, J. D. Elenee Argentinis, and Griff Weber. 2016. IBM Watson: How cognitive computing can be applied to big data challenges in life sciences research. Clin. Therapeut. 38, 4 (2016), 688--701.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher Cloos. 2005. The Utilibot project: An autonomous mobile robot based on utilitarianism. In Machine Ethics: Papers from the 2005 AAAI Fall Symposium. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 38--45.Google Scholar
- Nicolas Cointe, Grégory Bonnet, and Olivier Boissier. 2016. Ethical judgment of agents’ behaviors in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents 8 Multiagent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 1106--1114.Google Scholar
- Kari Gwen Coleman. 2001. Android arete: Toward a virtue ethic for computational agents. Ethics Inf. Technol. 3, 4 (2001), 247--265.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Benjamin Constant. 2013. Des réactions Politiques. Presses Électroniques de France, Paris,France.Google Scholar
- David Copp. 2005. The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Missy Cummings. 2017. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare. Technical Report. International Security Department and US and the Americas Program.Google Scholar
- Jonathan Dancy. 1999. Can a particularist learn the difference between right and wrong? In Proceedings of the 20th World Congress of Philosophy, Vol. 1. Philosophy Documentation Center, Charlottesville, VA, 59--72.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jonathan Dancy. 2000. The particularist’s progress. In Moral Particularism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Jonathan Dancy et al. 2004. Ethics without Principles. Oxford University Press on Demand, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- David Davenport. 2014. Moral mechanisms. Philos. Technol. 27, 1 (2014), 47--60.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Morteza Dehghani, Emmett Tomai, Kenneth D. Forbus, and Matthew Klenk. 2008. An integrated reasoning approach to moral decision-making. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’08). AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1280--1286.Google Scholar
- Louise Dennis, Michael Fisher, Marija Slavkovik, and Matt Webster. 2016. Formal verification of ethical choices in autonomous systems. Robot. Auton. Syst. 77 (2016), 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.11.012Google ScholarDigital Library
- Louise Abigail Dennis, Michael Fisher, and Alan F. T. Winfield. 2015. Towards verifiably ethical robot behaviour. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop: AI and Ethics. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 45--52.Google Scholar
- Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14, 4 (1989), 532--550.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amitai Etzioni and Oren Etzioni. 2017. Incorporating ethics into artificial intelligence. J. Ethics 21, 4 (2017), 403--418.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ralph Evins, Ravi Vaidyanathan, and Stuart Burgess. 2014. Multi-material compositional pattern-producing networks for form optimisation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on the Applications of Evolutionary Computation. Springer, Berlin, 189--200.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel M. T. Fessler, H. Clark Barrett, Martin Kanovsky, Stephen Stich, Colin Holbrook, Joseph Henrich, Alexander H. Bolyanatz, Matthew M. Gervais, Michael Gurven, Geoff Kushnick, et al. 2015. Moral parochialism and contextual contingency across seven societies. Proc. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 282, 1813 (2015), 20150907.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Luciano Floridi and Jeff W. Sanders. 2004. On the morality of artificial agents. Minds Mach. 14, 3 (2004), 349--379.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harry Frankfurt. 1994. An alleged asymmetry between actions and omissions. Ethics 104, 3 (1994), 620--623.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stan Franklin and F. G. Patterson Jr. 2006. The LIDA architecture: Adding new modes of learning to an intelligent autonomous, software agent. In Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Integrated Design 8 Process Technology (IDPT'06) 703, 764--1004. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/210304626_The_LIDA_architecture_Adding_new_modes_of_learning_to_an_intelligent_autonomous_software_agent.Google Scholar
- Ulrich Furbach, Claudia Schon, and Frieder Stolzenburg. 2014. Automated reasoning in deontic logic. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multi-disciplinary Trends in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 57--68.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Iason Gabriel. 2020. Artificial intelligence, values and alignment. ArXiv:2001.09768. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09768.Google Scholar
- Jean-Gabriel Ganascia. 2007. Ethical system formalization using non-monotonic logics. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Conference, Vol. 29. Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, TN, 1013--1018.Google Scholar
- Jean-Gabriel Ganascia. 2012. An agent-based formalization for resolving ethical conflicts. In Proceedings of the ECAI Belief Change, Non-monotonic Reasoning and Conflict Resolution Workshop). IOD Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Bryce Goodman and Seth Flaxman. 2017. European union regulations on algorithmic decision making and a “right to explanation.”AI Mag. 38, 3 (2017), 50--57.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Naveen Sundar Govindarajulu and Selmer Bringsjord. 2017. On automating the doctrine of double effect. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-17). 4722--4730.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marcello Guarini. 2006. Particularism and the classification and reclassification of moral cases. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21, 4 (2006), 22--28.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Guarini. 2012. Moral cases, moral reasons, and simulation. AISB/IACAP World Congr. 21, 4 (2012), 22--28.Google Scholar
- Claire Gudex, Paul Kind, et al. 1988. The QALY Toolkit. Technical Report. Centre for Health Economics, University of York.Google Scholar
- Joram Graf Haber. 1993. Doing and Being, Selected Readings in Moral Philosophy. Vol. 208. Macmillan, London, UK.Google Scholar
- Carole D. Hafner and Donald H. Berman. 2002. The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: Teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artif. Intell. Law 10, 1--3 (2002), 19--64.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joseph Y. Halpern and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1991. Model checking vs. theorem proving: a manifesto. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91). 325--334. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3087158.3087191Google Scholar
- The Han, Ari Saptawijaya, and Luís Moniz Pereira. 2012. Moral reasoning under uncertainty. In Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, 212--227.Google Scholar
- Richard Mervyn Hare and R. M. Hare. 1963. Freedom and Reason. Vol. 92. Oxford Paperbacks, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Gilbert Harman. 2005. Moral particularism and transduction. Philos. Issues 15 (2005), 44--55.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gilbert Harman and Judith Jarvis Thomson. 1996. Moral Relativism. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA, 3--64.Google Scholar
- Patrick Chisan Hew. 2014. Artificial moral agents are infeasible with foreseeable technologies. Ethics Inf. Technol. 16, 3 (2014), 197--206.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kenneth Einar Himma. 2009. Artificial agency, consciousness, and the criteria for moral agency: What properties must an artificial agent have to be a moral agent? Ethics Inf. Technol. 11, 1 (2009), 19--29.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ali Reza Honarvar and Nasser Ghasem-Aghaee. 2009. An artificial neural network approach for creating an ethical artificial agent. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation (CIRA’09). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 290--295.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ali Reza Honarvar and Nasser Ghasem-Aghaee. 2009. Casuist BDI-agent: A new extended BDI architecture with the capability of ethical reasoning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, 86--95.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John F. Horty. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- John F. Horty and Nuel Belnap. 1995. The deliberative stit: A study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. J. Philos. Logic 24, 6 (1995), 583--644.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Don Howard and Ioan Muntean. 2017. Artificial moral cognition: Moral functionalism and autonomous moral agency. In Philosophy and Computing. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 121--159.Google Scholar
- Matthew Iklé, Arthur Franz, Rafal Rzepka, and Ben Goertzel. 2018. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI’18). Vol. 10999. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
- Kant Immanuel. 1785. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. In Late Modern Philosophy: Essential Readings with Commentary, Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff, and Anand Vaidya (Eds.). Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
- Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Michael L. Littman, and Anthony R. Cassandra. 1998. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artif. Intell. 101, 1--2 (1998), 99--134.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Frances Myrna Kamm et al. 2007. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Solomon Kullback and Richard A. Leibler. 1951. On Information and Sufficiency. Ann. Math. Stat. 22, 1 (1951), 79--86.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jamy Li, Xuan Zhao, Mu-Jung Cho, Wendy Ju, and Bertram F. Malle. 2016. From Trolley to Autonomous Vehicle: Perceptions of Responsibility and Moral Norms in Traffic Accidents with Self-driving Cars. Technical Report. SAE Technical Paper.Google Scholar
- Felix Lindner, Martin Mose Bentzen, and Bernhard Nebel. 2017. The HERA approach to morally competent robots. In IROS 2017: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 6991--6997.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Edouard Machery. 2017. Philosophy within Its Proper Bounds. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, Chapter 2, 45--89.Google Scholar
- John L. Mackie. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin Books, Frankfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
- Tamas Madl and Stan Franklin. 2015. Constrained incrementalist moral decision making for a biologically inspired cognitive architecture. In A Construction Manual for Robots’ Ethical Systems. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 137--153.Google Scholar
- Bertram F. Malle, Matthias Scheutz, and Joseph L. Austerweil. 2017. Networks of social and moral norms in human and robot agents. In A World with Robots. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 3--17.Google Scholar
- Bruce M. McLaren. 2003. Extensionally defining principles and cases in ethics: An AI model. Artif. Intell. 150, 1--2 (2003), 145--181.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bruno Mermet and Gaële Simon. 2016. Formal verication of ethical properties in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Ethics in the Design of Intelligent Agents. CEUR, The Hague, Netherlands, 26--31.Google Scholar
- John Mikhail. 2007. Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 4 (2007), 143--152.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alex Miller. 2003. An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics. Polity, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- James H. Moor. 2006. The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21, 4 (2006), 18--21.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yuko Murakami. 2005. Utilitarian deontic logic. Adv. Modal Logic 5 (2005), 211--230.Google Scholar
- Baldoino F. dos S. Neto, Viviane Torres da Silva, and Carlos José Pereira de Lucena. 2011. NBDI: An architecture for goal-oriented normative agents. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART’11), Vol. 1. Springer, Berlin, 116--125.Google Scholar
- Ritesh Noothigattu, Snehalkumar “Neil” S. Gaikwad, Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Iyad Rahwan, Pradeep Ravikumar, and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2018. A voting-based system for ethical decision making. In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2018. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1587--1594.Google Scholar
- Luís Moniz Pereira and Ari Saptawijaya. 2007. Modelling morality with prospective logic. In Proceedings of the Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, 99--111.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Luís Moniz Pereira and Ari Saptawijaya. 2011. Modelling Morality with Prospective Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 398--421.Google Scholar
- Luís Moniz Pereira and Ari Saptawijaya. 2016. Programming Machine Ethics. Vol. 26. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Luís Moniz Pereira and Ari Saptawijaya. 2017. Counterfactuals, logic programming and agent morality. In Applications of Formal Philosophy. Springer, Berlin, 25--53.Google Scholar
- Rosalind Wright Picard et al. 1995. Affective Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Javier Pinto and Raymond Reiter. 1993. Temporal reasoning in logic programming: A case for the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference in Logic Programming, Vol. 93. Springer, Berlin, 203--221.Google Scholar
- Matthijs Pontier and Johan Hoorn. 2012. Toward machines that behave ethically better than humans do. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 34. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, 2198--2203.Google Scholar
- Matthijs A. Pontier and Guy A. M. Widdershoven. 2013. Robots that stimulate autonomy. In Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations, Harris Papadopoulos, Andreas S. Andreou, Lazaros Iliadis, and Ilias Maglogiannis (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 195--204.Google Scholar
- Jesse Prinz. 2007. The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- James Rachels. 1979. Active and Passive Euthanasia. Springer, Boston, MA, 551--516.Google Scholar
- John Rawls. 2009. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
- Gregory S. Reed, Mikel D. Petty, Nicholaos J. Jones, Anthony W. Morris, John P. Ballenger, and Harry S. Delugach. 2016. A principles-based model of ethical considerations in military decision making. J. Defense Model. Simul. 13, 2 (2016), 195--211.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Richards and Martyn Amos. 2014. Evolving morphologies with CPPN-NEAT and a dynamic substrate. In Proceedings of the Artificial Life Conference Proceedings 14. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 255--262.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig. 2016. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson Education Limited, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Google Scholar
- Rafal Rzepka and Kenji Araki. 2017. What people say? Web-based casuistry for artificial morality experiments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 178--187.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lydia Saad. 2010. Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans. Retrieved December 6, 2019 from https://news.gallup.com/poll/137357/four-moral-issues-sharply-divide-americans.aspx.Google Scholar
- Sonya Sachdeva, Purnima Singh, and Douglas Medin. 2011. Culture and the quest for universal principles in moral reasoning. Int. J. Psychol. 46, 3 (2011), 161--176.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Filippo Santoni de Sio and Jeroen Van den Hoven. 2018. Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account. Front. Robot. AI 5 (2018), 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00015Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ari Saptawijaya and Luís Moniz Pereira. 2014. Towards modeling morality computationally with logic programming. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 104--119.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ari Saptawijaya and Luís Moniz Pereira. 2015. The potential of logic programming as a computational tool to model morality. In A Construction Manual for Robots’ Ethical Systems. Springer, Berlin, 169--210.Google Scholar
- Ari Saptawijaya, Luís Moniz Pereira, et al. 2012. Moral reasoning under uncertainty. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, 212--227.Google Scholar
- Matthias Scheutz and Bertram F. Malle. 2014. Think and do the right thing: A plea for morally competent autonomous robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2014 International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 9.Google Scholar
- Eric Schwitzgebel and Fiery Cushman. 2012. Expertise in moral reasoning? Order effects on moral judgment in professional philosophers and non-philosophers. Mind Lang. 27, 2 (2012), 135--153.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eric Schwitzgebel and Fiery Cushman. 2015. Philosophers’ biased judgments persist despite training, expertise and reflection. Cognition 141 (2015), 127--137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.015Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jaeeun Shim, Ronald Arkin, and Michael Pettinatti. 2017. An intervening ethical governor for a robot mediator in patient-caregiver relationship: Implementation and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’17). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 2936--2942.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert Sparrow. 2007. Killer robots. J. Appl. Philos. 24, 1 (2007), 62--77.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gopal Sreenivasan. 2002. Errors about errors: Virtue theory and trait attribution. Mind 111, 441 (2002), 47--68.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kenneth O. Stanley, David B. D’Ambrosio, and Jason Gauci. 2009. A hypercube-based encoding for evolving large-scale neural networks. Artif. Life 15, 2 (2009), 185--212.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kenneth O. Stanley and Risto Miikkulainen. 2002. Evolving neural networks through augmenting topologies. Evol. Comput. 10, 2 (2002), 99--127.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John P. Sullins. 2006. When is a robot a moral agent? Int. Rev. Inf. Ethics 6, 12 (2006), 23--30. https://philpapers.org/rec/SULWIA-2.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sarah M. Thornton, Selina Pan, Stephen M. Erlien, and J. Christian Gerdes. 2017. Incorporating ethical considerations into automated vehicle control. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 18, 6 (2017), 1429--1439.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mihnea Tufiş and Jean-Gabriel Ganascia. 2015. Grafting norms onto the BDI agent model. In A Construction Manual for Robots’ Ethical Systems. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 119--133.Google Scholar
- Matteo Turilli. 2007. Ethical protocols design. Ethics Inf. Technol. 9, 1 (2007), 49--62.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chien Van Dang, Tin Trung Tran, Ki-Jong Gil, Yong-Bin Shin, Jae-Won Choi, Geon-Soo Park, and Jong-Wook Kim. 2017. Application of soar cognitive agent based on utilitarian ethics theory for home service robots. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI’17). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 155--158.Google Scholar
- Marlies Van de Voort, Wolter Pieters, and Luca Consoli. 2015. Refining the ethics of computer-made decisions: A classification of moral mediation by ubiquitous machines. Ethics Inf. Technol. 17, 1 (2015), 41--56.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dieter Vanderelst and Alan Winfield. 2017. An architecture for ethical robots inspired by the simulation theory of cognition. Cogn. Syst. Res. 48 (2017), 56--66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.04.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. David Velleman. 2013. Foundations for Moral Relativism. OpenBook Publishers, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- Bart Verheij. 2016. Formalizing value-guided argumentation for ethical systems design. Artif. Intell. Law 24, 4 (2016), 387--407.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Voiklis, Boyoung Kim, Corey Cusimano, and Bertram F. Malle. 2016. Moral judgments of human vs. robot agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN’16). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 775--780.Google Scholar
- Wendell Wallach. 2010. Cognitive models of moral decision making. Topics Cogn. Sci. 2, 3 (2010), 420--429.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen. 2008. Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wendell Wallach, Colin Allen, and Iva Smit. 2008. Machine morality: Bottom-up and top-down approaches for modelling human moral faculties. Ai Soc. 22, 4 (2008), 565--582.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wendell Wallach, Stan Franklin, and Colin Allen. 2010. A conceptual and computational model of moral decision making in human and artificial agents. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2, 3 (2010), 454--485.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard Whitley. 2000. The Intellectual and Social Publisher of the Sciences. Oxford University Press on Demand, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Vincent Wiegel and Jan van den Berg. 2009. Combining moral theory, modal logic and MAS to create well-behaving artificial agents. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 3 (2009), 233--242.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alan F. T. Winfield, Christian Blum, and Wenguo Liu. 2014. Towards an ethical robot: Internal models, consequences and ethical action selection. In Proceedings of the Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 85--96.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Wooldridge and Wiebe Van Der Hoek. 2005. On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract. J. Appl. Logic 3, 3--4 (2005), 396--420.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fiona Woollard. 2012. The doctrine of doing and allowing II: The moral relevance of the doing/allowing distinction. Philos. Compass 7, 7 (2012), 459--469.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fiona Woollard. 2015. Doing and Allowing Harm. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Yueh-Hua Wu and Shou-De Lin. 2017. A low-cost ethics shaping approach for designing reinforcement learning agents. In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18). AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1687--1694.Google Scholar
- Levent Yilmaz, Ana Franco-Watkins, and Timothy S. Kroecker. 2017. Computational models of ethical decision-making: A coherence-driven reflective equilibrium model. Cogn. Syst. Res. 46 (2017), 61--74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.02.005Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Yu, Z. Shen, C. Leung C. Miao, V. R. Lesser, and Q. Yang. 2018. Building ethics into artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’18). 5527--5533.Google Scholar
- Eliezer Yudkowsky. 2001. Creating Friendly AI 1.0: The Analysis and Design of Benevolent Goal Architectures. The Singularity Institute, San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
- Tal Zarsky. 2016. The trouble with algorithmic decisions: An analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41, 1 (2016), 118--132.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Implementations in Machine Ethics: A Survey
Recommendations
Conative Dimensions of Machine Ethics: A Defense of Duty
Immanuel Kant is one of the giants of moral theorizing in the western philosophical tradition. He developed a view of moral imperatives and duty that continues to inspire thought up to the present. In a thought-provoking series of papers, Anthony ...
A Challenge for Machine Ethics
That the successful development of fully autonomous artificial moral agents (AMAs) is imminent is becoming the received view within artificial intelligence research and robotics. The discipline of Machines Ethics, whose mandate is to create such ethical ...
Robots: ethical by design
Among ethicists and engineers within robotics there is an ongoing discussion as to whether ethical robots are possible or even desirable. We answer both of these questions in the positive, based on an extensive literature study of existing arguments. ...
Comments