Debunking (the) Retribution (Gap)

Abstract

Robotization is an increasingly pervasive feature of our lives. Robots with high degrees of autonomy may cause harm, yet in sufficiently complex systems neither the robots nor the human developers may be candidates for moral blame. John Danaher has recently argued that this may lead to a retribution gap, where the human desire for retribution faces a lack of appropriate subjects for retributive blame. The potential social and moral implications of a retribution gap are considerable. I argue that the retributive intuitions that feed into retribution gaps are best understood as deontological intuitions. I apply a debunking argument for deontological intuitions in order to show that retributive intuitions cannot be used to justify retributive punishment in cases of robot harm without clear candidates for blame. The fundamental moral question thus becomes what we ought to do with these retributive intuitions, given that they do not justify retribution. I draw a parallel from recent work on implicit biases to make a case for taking moral responsibility for retributive intuitions. In the same way that we can exert some form of control over our unwanted implicit biases, we can and should do so for unjustified retributive intuitions in cases of robot harm.

Experimental Philosophy of Technology

“…In one sense, the move made in the second approach is similar to the one that I made in applying an evolutionary debunking argument (Kraaijeveld, 2020), in that both try to undermine in some way the status of the relevant intuitions/judgments. The important difference, as should be clear, is that applying the DVA inherently involves an empirical premise.…”

“…I have argued elsewhere (Kraaijeveld, 2020) that this argument essentially involves people's retributive intuitions, and I have applied an evolutionary debunking argument to intuitions in these cases to argue that they are unjustified and thus ought not to be heeded. Although this approach at first glance may appear to fall within the negative program of experimental philosophy of technology, it was by means of an analytic argument that I attempted to undermine the relevant intuitions and, thereby, the retribution gap argument.…”

Modern Characteristics And Mechanisms Of Identification Of Social Subject

“…In terms of identifying the efficiency of labor market depending on the characteristics of sound socialization and reflection of its carriers, the emphasis is on the need to adjust the contradiction between the values of creativity as a potential basis for professional identification of the subject and the immediate demands of production (Hillerbrand & Werker, 2019). The technicalization of consciousness is associated not only with the problems of infrahumanism, whose research is constantly expanding, as evidenced by a review of the relevant literature (Trappes, 2019), but also with the problems of "feedback": Moral Issues in Information Space (Kraaijeveld, 2019). Any doubts about preservation of human factor in man (Trappes, 2019) make the study of the mechanisms of inculturation topical, the action of which is objectified in the identification processes (Zhilin & Zhilina, 2015).…”

“…Nowadays the specific nature of development of a communicative subject relates to overcoming many simplified stereotypes regarding the understanding of a man and society as a set of relationships https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.05.362 Corresponding Author: Zhilina Vera Anatolyevna Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN: 2357-1330 2747 between people. In particular, in the information society, the technology can no longer be positioned as a simple tool for survival in the environment (Kraaijeveld, 2019). The technology and information space of all the characteristics of a social subject reveals himself in the fundamentally new nature of rationality of modern man.…”

There Is No Techno-Responsibility Gap

“…Although he does not distinguish between the various sorts of responsibility, a similar move is made byKraaijeveld (2019).28 Indeed, there are those-like Pereboom (2014)-who adopt a purely forward-looking account of responsibility.…”