Responsibility and Robot Ethics: A Critical Overview

Abstract

This paper has three concerns: first, it represents an etymological and genealogical study of the phenomenon of responsibility. Secondly, it gives an overview of the three fields of robot ethics as a philosophical discipline and discusses the fundamental questions that arise within these three fields. Thirdly, it will be explained how in these three fields of robot ethics is spoken about responsibility and how responsibility is attributed in general. As a philosophical paper, it presents a theoretical approach and no practical suggestions are made as to which robots should bear responsibility under which circumstances or how guidelines should be formulated in which a responsible use of robots is outlined.

A Systematic Review of Robotic Rehabilitation for Cognitive Training

“…Even though a robot's deceptive action may lead to positive outcome, Shim and Arkin emphasized that the ethical implications of the robot deception, including those regarding motives for deception, should always be discussed and validated prior to its application. Another arising ethical issue is how responsibility can be allocated, or distribution of responsibility (Loh, 2019 ; Müller, 2020 ). For example, if a robot acts during cognitive training, will the robot itself, designers or users be responsible, liable or accountable for the robot's actions?…”

The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review

“…The authors interpret the results as showing that, “children are primarily supportive of robot rights in scenarios that contain human–robot interactions at their core” but not where robots are independent. However, this distinction was not directly tested Lima et al ( 2020 ) The authors asked online survey participants about “11 possible rights that could be granted to autonomous electronic agents of the future.” Respondents were opposed to most of these rights but supported the “right against cruel treatment and punishment.” The researchers also found significant effects from providing additional information intended to promote support for robot rights Loh ( 2019 ) Loh discusses “three fields of robot ethics,” one of which is the consideration of moral patiency. Loh focuses on this issue within the theoretical framework of “responsibility networks,” which is described as a “relational concept.” Loh concludes that artificial entities “could be identified as object or even addressee of one or more responsibilities… in this manner it is possible to integrate robots as moral patients in responsibilities.” Autonomy seems to be important for this Lopez-Mobilia ( 2011 ) In this study, “children were asked whether or not different kinds of nonhuman entities (dogs, trees, robots, dolls) were capable of a range of psychological states (e.g., thinking, feeling)” then “asked to judge the morality of actions that led to a negative consequence for a nonhuman target.” The results showed no “relation between psychological attributions and moral judgments,” though this could be due to the study methodology Lupetti et al ( 2019 ) After summarizing previous contributions relevant to the discussion of robot citizenship, the authors summarize their findings from interviews with roboticists on “a small series of current urban robot challenges.” They argue for the importance of a “socio-relational perspective” in the design of robots MacDorman and Cowley ( 2006 ) MacDorman and Cowley argue that the “ability to sustain long-term relationships” is “the most compelling” benchmark for personhood, since other benchmarks are “trivial, subjective, or based on assumptions about moral universals.” This argument is related to various ethical and legal debates.…”

What is the message of the robot medium? Considering media ecology and mobilities in critical robotics research

“…ME encourages us to consider robots as media that like red dye may color other elements in our lifeworlds. Current scholarship into robotics alludes to the ecological nature of robots when stating that “the behavior of a robot […] is, or at least appears to be autonomous and it can […] influence its environment” (Loh 2019 , p. 7). Next to such studies that look into robotic processes and environmental effects on individual scales, ME shifts attention to the larger ecological workings of the robotic medium across cultures and societies.…”

“…Robots similarly extend various human faculties based on their design and purpose. Rooted in the Czech word “robota” for “work, compulsory service, and forced labor” and coined in 1920 by the artist Josef Capek (Loh 2019 ), robots are “at our service” by extending our hands, legs, eyes, ears and more for “tiresome, boring (e.g., repetitive) and dangerous work” (Loh 2019 : 6). When imagining robots, we may more readily think of Rosie than Siri, C-3PO than Google Home which speaks to the prevalent association of robots with mimetic machines, i.e., machines that imitate the human.…”