Robotic Companions:
Some Ethical Considerations about
Designing a Good Life with Robots
Lawrence M. Hinman, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Co-Director,
Center for Ethics in Science & Technology
University of San Diego
Larry@EthicsMatters.net
May 17, 2009
Overview
Definition: Robotic Companions
The General Question
•
•
Designing a good life that encompasses both humans and robots
Ethics as experimental science
Seven Specific Questions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transforming filial responsibility
Transforming expectations of humans
Designed for honesty
Sexual companions
Robotic fungibility
Robots as slaves
Summary
Conclusion
Definition: Robotic Companions
Principal focus is on sociable
robots (following Breazeal et al.):
• Roughly humanoid in appearance
• Fairly autonomous
• Capable of emotion recognition and
voice recognition
• Basic drive to care for others
• Capable of expressing information
• Capable of expressing (the
appearance of) emotions
The General Question
Distinguish two conceptions of ethics
• Negative, other-directed. Focuses on how others are wrong.
• Positive, future-directed. Focuses on how we can create a
good life together.
The general question here is about what counts as a good life
together that encompasses both humans and robotic
companions.
• Part of a larger domain that includes cyborgs, animals, and
more autonomous robots.
This means that ethics must do empirical research to
determine the ways in which humanity is being transformed.
The following specifies areas for research, not a priori
answers.
Ethics as an Experimental Science
This suggests that the job of moral philosophers is not to
dictate right and wrong, but to highlight areas of concern
for research.
Nadeau suggests:
Artificial intelligence works by heuristics, and there is one
heuristic theory of moral reasoning, rule utilitarianism.
The idea is that from experience one learns which
patterns of behavior have caused benefit and which have
caused harm, and that experience is generalized to moral
rules of thumb that guide ethical actions. The rules of
thumb can be overridden in circumstances in which it
becomes evident that following them will cause harm or
fail to do good. They are defaults.
Filial Responsibility
The first interesting question is about the possible ways
that companion robots can transform our
understanding of filial responsibility.
The moral contours of human life are shaped by certain
basic events, including
•
•
•
•
Being born
Creating new life (conceiving)
Working
Dying
•
•
Being nurtured
Nurturing
Q1: How will the widespread use of companion
robots transform our experience of nurturing and
being nurtured?
Changing Expectations about Humans
Companion robots can be extraordinarily
patient, tolerant, and supportive—often far
more so than their human counterparts.
The second interesting question concerns
the impact that human-robot interactions
will have on human-human interactions.
Bluntly put, will we come to prefer robots?
Q2: How will the widespread use of
companion robots change our
expectations about other
humans? Will we expect more
of them?
Designed for Honesty
We face a number of interesting questions about the honesty of
companion robots. Here are two.
Q3:
Should companion robots always tell the exact
truth to their charges?
We could imagine someone asking his companion robot if he looks
healthy today. The robot might always tell the truth, might always say
only positive things, or might exaggerated the positive by 10%.
Q4:
Should companion robots always report
accurately on their charges to their
supervisors?
It would be surprising if companion robots didn’t eventually include a
reporting function to send information back to supervisors.
Sexual Companions
The next interesting question is
whether we should allow such
robots to provide sexual stimulation
or satisfaction to their charges.
Q5:
Should companion robots
function as sexual
companions?
Fungibility
Many objects are fungible—one instance can be substituted
for another without loss or change. A dollar bill is a
paradigm case—one is just as good as any other.
Objects of emotional attachment are generally not fungible.
If I am married to someone who has a twin, I couldn’t
substitute the twin for my spouse in the way in which I
could substitute one dollar bill for another.
Q6:
Should companion robots be treated as fungible?
In other words, are robotic companions to be seen as
interchangeable or as
Robots and slaves
I wonder whether we don’t implicitly think about robotic
companions as slaves, available to do our bidding but not
centers of interest in themselves.
Q7:
Should companion robots be designed and
treated as slaves?
I don’t know the answer to this question, but the question is
implicit in several of the preceding questions.
It seems that we might be able to understand some of the
possible dangers here by looking at the literature on
slavery: Aristotle on the natural slave, Hegel on the
master-slave dialectic, Marx on Hegel, narrative accounts
of slaves, etc.
Summary
Q1:
Q2:
Q3:
Q4:
Q5:
Q6:
Q7:
How will the widespread use of companion robots transform
our experience of nurturing and being nurtured?
How will the widespread use of companion robots change
our expectations about other humans? Will we expect more
of them?
Should companion robots always tell the exact truth to their
charges?
Should companion robots always report accurately on their
charges to their supervisors?
Should companion robots function as sexual companions?
Should companion robots be treated as fungible?
Should companion robots be designed and treated as
slaves?
Conclusion
Companion robots will be a fact of life in the near
future, barring some major disaster.
The interesting question is how can we construct a
good life together with companion robots and
human beings?
The intent of the preceding seven questions is to
highlight areas of concern, factors that might
make it more difficult to construct a good life
together.