Editorial

3 pages, 183 KiB

Open AccessEditorial

Editorial for the Special Issue on “ROBOETHICS”

by Spyros G. Tzafestas

Information 2018, 9(12), 331; https://doi.org/10.3390/info9120331 - 19 Dec 2018

Viewed by 2179

Ethical and social issues of robotics have attracted increasing attention from the scientific and technical community over the years. These issues arise particularly in mental and sensitive robotic applications, such as robot-based rehabilitation, social robot (sociorobot) applications, and military robot applications. The purpose [...] Read more.

Ethical and social issues of robotics have attracted increasing attention from the scientific and technical community over the years. These issues arise particularly in mental and sensitive robotic applications, such as robot-based rehabilitation, social robot (sociorobot) applications, and military robot applications. The purpose of launching this Special Issue was to publish high-quality papers addressing timely and important aspects of roboethics, and to serve as a dissemination source of novel ideas demonstrating the necessity of roboethics. The papers finally included in the Special Issue deal with fundamental aspects and address interesting deep questions in the roboethics and robophililosophy field. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue ROBOETHICS)

Research

Jump to: Editorial, Review

12 pages, 1988 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Can Social Robots Make Societies More Human?

by João Silva Sequeira

Information 2018, 9(12), 295; https://doi.org/10.3390/info9120295 - 22 Nov 2018

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 5050

Abstract

A major criticism social robots often face is that their integration in real social, human environments will dehumanize some of the roles currently being played by the human agents. This implicitly overestimates the social skills of the robots, which are constantly being upgraded, [...] Read more.

A major criticism social robots often face is that their integration in real social, human environments will dehumanize some of the roles currently being played by the human agents. This implicitly overestimates the social skills of the robots, which are constantly being upgraded, but which are still far from being able to overshadow humans. Moreover, it reflects loosely rational fears that robots may overcome humans in the near future. This paper points to a direction opposite to mainstream, and claims that robots can induce humanizing feelings in humans. In fact, current technological limitations can be managed to induce a perception of social fragility that may lead human agents to reason about the social condition of a robot. Though robot and/or technology phobias may bias the way a social robot is perceived, this reasoning process may contribute to an introspection on the meaning of being social and, potentially, to contribute to humanizing social environments. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue ROBOETHICS)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 223 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Two New Philosophical Problems for Robo-Ethics

by Jeff Buechner

Information 2018, 9(10), 256; https://doi.org/10.3390/info9100256 - 18 Oct 2018

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2577

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe two new philosophical problems for robo-ethics. When one considers the kinds of philosophical problems that arise in the emerging field of robo-ethics, one typically thinks of issues that concern agency, autonomy, rights, consciousness, warfare/military applications, [...] Read more.

The purpose of this paper is to describe two new philosophical problems for robo-ethics. When one considers the kinds of philosophical problems that arise in the emerging field of robo-ethics, one typically thinks of issues that concern agency, autonomy, rights, consciousness, warfare/military applications, employment and work, the impact for elder-care, and many others. All of these philosophical problems are well known. However, this paper describes two new philosophical problems for robo-ethics that have not been previously addressed in the literature. The author’s view is that if these philosophical problems are not solved, some aspects of robo-ethics research and development will be challenged. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue ROBOETHICS)

11 pages, 206 KiB

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

Vital, Sophia, and Co.—The Quest for the Legal Personhood of Robots

by Ugo Pagallo

Information 2018, 9(9), 230; https://doi.org/10.3390/info9090230 - 10 Sep 2018

Cited by 43 | Viewed by 13941

Abstract

The paper examines today’s debate on the legal status of AI robots, and how often scholars and policy makers confuse the legal agenthood of these artificial agents with the status of legal personhood. By taking into account current trends in the field, the [...] Read more.

The paper examines today’s debate on the legal status of AI robots, and how often scholars and policy makers confuse the legal agenthood of these artificial agents with the status of legal personhood. By taking into account current trends in the field, the paper suggests a twofold stance. First, policy makers shall seriously mull over the possibility of establishing novel forms of accountability and liability for the activities of AI robots in contracts and business law, e.g., new forms of legal agenthood in cases of complex distributed responsibility. Second, any hypothesis of granting AI robots full legal personhood has to be discarded in the foreseeable future. However, how should we deal with Sophia, which became the first AI application to receive citizenship of any country, namely, Saudi Arabia, in October 2017? Admittedly, granting someone, or something, legal personhood is—as always has been—a highly sensitive political issue that does not simply hinge on rational choices and empirical evidence. Discretion, arbitrariness, and even bizarre decisions play a role in this context. However, the normative reasons why legal systems grant human and artificial entities, such as corporations, their status, help us taking sides in today’s quest for the legal personhood of AI robots. Is citizen Sophia really conscious, or capable of suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous scholars? Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue ROBOETHICS)

11 pages, 239 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Getting Ready for the Next Step: Merging Information Ethics and Roboethics—A Project in the Context of Marketing Ethics

by Sara Lumbreras

Information 2018, 9(8), 195; https://doi.org/10.3390/info9080195 - 01 Aug 2018

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 3270

Abstract

This article presents some pressing issues on roboethics, which lie at the frontier between roboethics and information ethics. It relates them to the well-established field of marketing ethics, stressing two main points. First, that human attention and willpower is limited and susceptible to [...] Read more.

This article presents some pressing issues on roboethics, which lie at the frontier between roboethics and information ethics. It relates them to the well-established field of marketing ethics, stressing two main points. First, that human attention and willpower is limited and susceptible to be exploited. Second, that the possibility of using consumer profiles considerably increases the possibility of manipulation. It presents the interactions with robots as a particularly intense setting, in which the humanlike presence and the possibility of tailoring communications to the profile of the human target can be especially problematic. The paper concludes with some guidelines that could be useful in limiting the potentially harmful effects of human–robot interactions in the context of information ethics. These guidelines focus on the need for transparency and the establishment of limits, especially for products and services and vulnerable collectives, as well as supporting a healthy attention and willpower. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue ROBOETHICS)

11 pages, 220 KiB

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

Engineering Cheerful Robots: An Ethical Consideration

by Raya A. Jones

Information 2018, 9(7), 152; https://doi.org/10.3390/info9070152 - 24 Jun 2018

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 5394

Abstract

Socially interactive robots in a variety of forms and function are quickly becoming part of everyday life and bring with them a host of applied ethical issues. This paper concerns meta-ethical implications at the interface among robotics, ethics, psychology, and the social sciences. [...] Read more.

Socially interactive robots in a variety of forms and function are quickly becoming part of everyday life and bring with them a host of applied ethical issues. This paper concerns meta-ethical implications at the interface among robotics, ethics, psychology, and the social sciences. While guidelines for the ethical design and use of robots are necessary and urgent, meeting this exigency opens up the issue of whose values and vision of the ideal society inform public policies. The paper is organized as a sequence of questions: Can robots be agents of cultural transmission? Is a cultural shift an issue for roboethics? Should roboethics be an instrument of (political) social engineering? How could biases of the technological imagination be avoided? Does technological determinism compromise the possibility of moral action? The answers to these questions are not straightforwardly affirmative or negative, but their contemplation leads to heeding C. Wright Mills’ metaphor of the cheerful robot. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue ROBOETHICS)

16 pages, 256 KiB

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

Can Social Robots Qualify for Moral Consideration? Reframing the Question about Robot Rights

by Herman T. Tavani

Information 2018, 9(4), 73; https://doi.org/10.3390/info9040073 - 29 Mar 2018

Cited by 32 | Viewed by 13655

Abstract

A controversial question that has been hotly debated in the emerging field of robot ethics is whether robots should be granted rights. Yet, a review of the recent literature in that field suggests that this seemingly straightforward question is far from clear and [...] Read more.

A controversial question that has been hotly debated in the emerging field of robot ethics is whether robots should be granted rights. Yet, a review of the recent literature in that field suggests that this seemingly straightforward question is far from clear and unambiguous. For example, those who favor granting rights to robots have not always been clear as to which kinds of robots should (or should not) be eligible; nor have they been consistent with regard to which kinds of rights—civil, legal, moral, etc.—should be granted to qualifying robots. Also, there has been considerable disagreement about which essential criterion, or cluster of criteria, a robot would need to satisfy to be eligible for rights, and there is ongoing disagreement as to whether a robot must satisfy the conditions for (moral) agency to qualify either for rights or (at least some level of) moral consideration. One aim of this paper is to show how the current debate about whether to grant rights to robots would benefit from an analysis and clarification of some key concepts and assumptions underlying that question. My principal objective, however, is to show why we should reframe that question by asking instead whether some kinds of social robots qualify for moral consideration as moral patients. In arguing that the answer to this question is “yes,” I draw from some insights in the writings of Hans Jonas to defend my position. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue ROBOETHICS)

Review

Jump to: Editorial, Research

25 pages, 1887 KiB

Open AccessReview

Roboethics: Fundamental Concepts and Future Prospects

by Spyros G. Tzafestas

Information 2018, 9(6), 148; https://doi.org/10.3390/info9060148 - 20 Jun 2018

Cited by 27 | Viewed by 12518

Abstract

Many recent studies (e.g., IFR: International Federation of Robotics, 2016) predict that the number of robots (industrial, service/social, intelligent/autonomous) will increase enormously in the future. Robots are directly involved in human life. Industrial robots, household robots, medical robots, assistive robots, sociable/entertainment robots, and [...] Read more.

Many recent studies (e.g., IFR: International Federation of Robotics, 2016) predict that the number of robots (industrial, service/social, intelligent/autonomous) will increase enormously in the future. Robots are directly involved in human life. Industrial robots, household robots, medical robots, assistive robots, sociable/entertainment robots, and war robots all play important roles in human life and raise crucial ethical problems for our society. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the fundamental concepts of robot ethics (roboethics) and some future prospects of robots and roboethics, as an introduction to the present Special Issue of the journal Information on “Roboethics”. We start with the question of what roboethics is, as well as a discussion of the methodologies of roboethics, including a brief look at the branches and theories of ethics in general. Then, we outline the major branches of roboethics, namely: medical roboethics, assistive roboethics, sociorobot ethics, war roboethics, autonomous car ethics, and cyborg ethics. Finally, we present the prospects for the future of robotics and roboethics. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue ROBOETHICS)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

ROBOETHICS

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editor

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Published Papers (8 papers)

Editorial

Research

Review

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI