Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Ethics and Information Technology
Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology 4/2018

24.09.2018 | Original Paper

Why robots should not be treated like animals

verfasst von: Deborah G. Johnson, Mario Verdicchio

Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Responsible Robotics is about developing robots in ways that take their social implications into account, which includes conceptually framing robots and their role in the world accurately. We are now in the process of incorporating robots into our world and we are trying to figure out what to make of them and where to put them in our conceptual, physical, economic, legal, emotional and moral world. How humans think about robots, especially humanoid social robots, which elicit complex and sometimes disconcerting reactions, is not predetermined. The animal–robot analogy is one of the most commonly used in attempting to frame interactions between humans and robots and it also tends to push in the direction of blurring the distinction between humans and machines. We argue that, despite some shared characteristics, when it comes to thinking about the moral status of humanoid robots, legal liability, and the impact of treatment of humanoid robots on how humans treat one another, analogies with animals are misleading.
Vorheriger Artikel Privacy perception and protection on Chinese social media: a case study of WeChat
Nächster Artikel Treating sensitive topics online: a privacy dilemma

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Many roboticists talk about robots “feeling” or “sensing” the environment because these machines are endowed with sensors, but their discourse is metaphorical.
 
2
Some scholars, like Solaiman, turn to animals as a model to deny that robots should be granted personhood (Solaiman 2017). The scholar uses a case in which a judge denied personhood to chimpanzees to argue against the idea of conferring legal personhood to robots. This all-or-nothing approach on personhood (either animals and robots have all the rights and duties connected with personhood or they don’t have any) may be too coarse-grained for our analysis, since it begs the question on why there are laws against animal cruelty even though animals are not considered persons.
 
3
Strict liability means liability does not depend on intent to do harm or negligence. With strict liability, one is liable regardless of the fact that one had no ill intent and may have taken precautions to prevent the harm. By contrast, negligence involves failure to take proper care in doing something.
 
4
In a later paper, Kelley et al. (2010) further modify the Robots as Animals framework by specifying that the important distinction is between robots that are dangerous and robots that are safe. Using an analogy with dangerous dogs, they suggest that bans or restrictions might be appropriate for dangerous robots.
 
5
Currently there are a number of codes or standards for robotics such as the EPSRC Principles of Robotics that have a thrust in this direction but are not specific. For example, the 4th rule in EPSRC’s Principles for Designers, Builders, and Users of Robots is that: “Robots are manufactured artefacts. They should not be designed in a deceptive way to exploit vulnerable users; instead their machine nature should be transparent.” (EPSRC 2010).
 
Literatur
Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 161–178.CrossRef
Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (Eds.). (2011). Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asaro, P. M. (2012). A body to kick, but still no soul to damn: Legal perspectives on robotics. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Asaro, P. M. (2016). The liability problem for autonomous artificial agents. Ethical and Moral Considerations in Non-Human Agents, 2016 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.
Ashrafian, H. (2015). Artificial intelligence and robot responsibilities: Innovating beyond rights. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(2), 317–326.CrossRef
Asimov, I. (1993). Forward the foundation. London: Doubleday.
Borenstein, J., & Pearson, Y. (2010). Robot caregivers: Harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 277–288.CrossRef
Bryson, J. J., Diamantis, M. E., & Grant, T. D. (2017). Of, for, and by the people: The legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25, 273–291.CrossRef
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2009). Comfortably numb: Desensitizing effects of violent media on helping others. Psychological Science, 20(3), 273–277.CrossRef
Calverley, D. (2006). J. Android science and animal rights, does an analogy exist? Connection Science, 18(4), 403–417.CrossRef
Calverley, D. J. (2005). Android science and the animal rights movement: Are there analogies. In Cognitive Sciences Society Workshop, Stresa, Italy, pp. 127–136.
Chilvers, J. (2013). Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication, 35(3), 283–310.CrossRef
Chin, M., Sims, V., Clark, B., & Lopez, G. (2004). Measuring individual differences in anthropomorphism toward machines and animals. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol 48, pp. 1252–1255.CrossRef
Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 209–221.CrossRef
Darling, K. (2016). Extending legal protection to social robots: The effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. In R. Calo, A. M. Froomkin & I. Kerr (Eds.), Robot Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Delvaux, M. (2016). Draft Report with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics. European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs Report 2015/2103 (INL).
Dick, P. K. (1968). Do androids dream of electric sheep? London: Doubleday.
Elbogen, E. B., Johnson, S. C., Wagner, H. R., Sullivan, C., & Taft, C. T. (2014). and J. C. Beckham. Violent behaviour and post-traumatic stress disorder in US Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 204(5), 368–375.CrossRef
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.CrossRef
Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Bobinger, S., De Ruiter, L., & Hegel, F. (2012). “If you sound like me, you must be more human”: On the interplay of robot and user features on human–robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI’12), pp. 125–126.
Ford, M. (2015). The rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of mass unemployment. London: Oneworld Publications.
Fussell, S. R., Kiesler, S., Setlock, L. D., & Yew, V. (2008). How people anthropomorphize robots. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI 2008), pp. 145–152.
Garland, A. (2015). Ex Machina [Motion Picture]. Universal City: Universal Pictures.
Gentner, D., & Forbus, K. D. (2011). Computational models of analogy. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2, 266–276.CrossRef
Gibson, W. (1996). Idoru. New York: Viking Press.
Glas, D. F., Minato, T., Ishi, C. T., Kawahara, T., & Ishiguro, H. (2016). “ERICA: The ERATO Intelligent Conversational Android.” Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 22–29.
Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K. W., & Wolf, M. J. (2015). Developing automated deceptions and the impact on trust. Philosophy & Technology, 28(1), 91–105.CrossRef
Gunkel, D. J. (2012). The machine question. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gunkel, D. J. (2014). A vindication of the rights of machines. Philosophy & Technology, 27(1), 113–132.CrossRef
Hauskeller, M. (2016). Mythologies of transhumanism. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRef
Hogan, K. (2017). Is the machine question the same question as the animal question? Ethics and Information Technology, 19, 29–38.CrossRef
Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarityin analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15, 332–340.CrossRef
Johnson, D. G., & Verdicchio, M. (2017). AI anxiety. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2267–2270.CrossRef
Jonze, S. Her [Motion Picture], Warner Bros., Burbank, 2013.
Kant, I. (1997). Lectures on ethics, In: P. Heath and J. B. Schneewind (Eds.), translated by P Heath.
Kelley, R., Schaerer, E., Gomez, M., & Nicolescu, M. (2010). Liability in robotics: An international perspective on robots as animals. Advanced Robotics, 24(13), 1861–1871.CrossRef
Kuehn, J., & Haddadin, S. (2017). An artificial robot nervous system to teach robots how to feel pain and reflexively react to potentially damaging contacts. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(1), 72–79.CrossRef
Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. London: Penguin Books.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Levy, D. (2008). Love and Sex with Robots. New York: Harper Perennial.
Levy, D. (2009). The ethical treatment of artificially conscious robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3), 209–216.CrossRef
Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. A. (2011). Robot Ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
MacLennan, B. (2013). Cruelty to robots? The hard problem of robot suffering. Proceedings of the 2013 Meeting of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy (IACAP).
MacManus, D., Rona, R., Dickson, H., Somaini, G., Fear, N., & Wessely, S. (2015). Aggressive and violent behavior among military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: Prevalence and link with deployment and combat exposure. Epidemiologic Reviews, 37(1), 196–212.CrossRef
Markey, P. M., French, J. E., & Markey, C. N. (2014). Violent movies and severe acts of violence: Sensationalism versus science. Human Communication Research, 41(2), 155–173.CrossRef
McNally, P., & Inayatullah, S. (1988). The rights of robots: Technology, culture and law in the 21st century. Futures, 20(2), 119–136.CrossRef
Metzinger, T. (2013). Two principles for robot ethics. In E. Hilgendorf & J.-P. Günther (Eds.), Robotik und Gesetzgebung (pp. 247–286). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Moore, A. (1989). V for Vendetta. Burbank: DC Comics.
Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100.CrossRef
Novaco, R. W., & Chemtob, C. M. (2015). Violence associated with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder: The importance of anger. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 7(5), 485.CrossRef
Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRef
Parisi, D. (2014). Future robots: Towards a robotic science of human beings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRef
Perkowitz, S. (2004). Digital people: From bionic humans to androids. Washington: Joseph Henry Press.
Ramey, C. H. (2005). “For the Sake of Others”: The “Personal” Ethics of Human-Android Interaction. In Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science: A CogSci 2005 Workshop. July 25–26, Stresa, Italy, pp. 137–148.
Robertson, J. (2014). Human rights vs. robot rights: Forecasts from Japan. Critical Asian Studies, 46(4), 571–598.CrossRef
Ross, B. H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 5, 456–468.
Schaerer, E., Kelley, R., & Nicolescu, M. (2009). Robots as animals: A framework for liability and responsibility in human-robot interactions. In RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 72–77, IEEE.
Schmidt, C. T. A. (2008). Redesigning Man? In P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, A. Light & S. A. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture (pp. 209–216). New York: Springer.CrossRef
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2012). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 27–40.CrossRef
Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2010). The crying shame of robot nannies: An ethical appraisal. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 161–190.CrossRef
Solaiman, S. M. (2017). Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: A quest for legitimacy. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25, 155–179.CrossRef
Spellman, B. A., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 307–346.CrossRef
Spennemann, D. H. (2007). R. Of great apes and robots: Considering the future(s) of cultural heritage. Futures, 39(7), 861–877.CrossRef
Sullins, J. P. (2006). When is a robot a moral agent. International Review of Information Ethics, 6(12), 23–30.
Sullins, J. P. (2011). When is a robot a moral agent? In M. Anderson & S. L. Anderson (Eds.), Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Rysewyk, S. (2014). Robot pain. International Journal of Synthetic Emotions, 4(2), 22–33.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Why robots should not be treated like animals
verfasst von
Deborah G. Johnson
Mario Verdicchio
Publikationsdatum
24.09.2018
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Ethics and Information Technology / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1388-1957
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8439
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9481-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

Ethics and Information Technology 4/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Real moral problems in the use of virtual reality

Original Paper

Treating sensitive topics online: a privacy dilemma

Original Paper

Privacy perception and protection on Chinese social media: a case study of WeChat

Original paper

A practice–theoretical account of privacy

Original Paper

Exploring the ethical, organisational and technological challenges of crime mapping: a critical approach to urban safety technologies