AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 523–537 | Cite as

Imagining a non-biological machine as a legal person

Original Article

Abstract

As non-biological machines come to be designed in ways which exhibit characteristics comparable to human mental states, the manner in which the law treats these entities will become increasingly important both to designers and to society at large. The direct question will become whether, given certain attributes, a non-biological machine could ever be viewed as a “legal person.” In order to begin to understand the ramifications of this question, this paper starts by exploring the distinction between the related concepts of “human,” “person,” and “property.” Once it is understood that person in the legal sense can apply to a non-biological entity such as a corporation, the inquiry then goes on to examine the folk psychology view of intentionality and the concept of autonomy. The conclusion reached is that these two attributes can support the view that a non-biological machine, at least in theory, can be viewed as a legal person.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article is derived from prior papers delivered at a number of conferences held in 2005. The primary papers have appeared in print in Proceedings of the Symposium on Next Generation Approaches to Machine Consciousness sponsored by The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behavior (SSAISB), and in the AAAI Fall Symposium 2005, Machine Ethics, sponsored by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Permission to use those papers is appreciated. Likewise, the comments and suggestions from attendees at those conferences have been helpful in refining the ideas.

References

  1. Adams W (2004) Machine consciousness: plausible idea or semantic distortion? J Conscious Stud 11(9):46–56Google Scholar
  2. Angel L (1989) How to build a conscious machine. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbib M, Fellous J (2004) Emotions: from brain to robot. Trends Cogn Sci 8(12):554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin J (1832) The province of jurisprudence determined, 1955 edn. Weidenfeld, Nicholson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayer AJ (1963) The concept of a person. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Boden M (1996) Autonomy and artificiality. In: Boden M (ed) The philosophy of artificiallife. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Brentano F (1924–1973) Psychology from an empirical standpoint (Rancurello AC, Terrell DB, McAlister L Transs.). Routledge, Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark A (2003) Artificial intelligence and the many faces of reason. In: Stich S, Warfield T (eds) The Blackwell guide to philosophy of mind. Blackwell, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Covigaru A, Lindsay R (1991) Deterministic autonomous systems. AI Mag Fall, pp 110–117Google Scholar
  10. Damasio A (1994) Descartes’ error. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson T (1982) Corporations and morality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Floridi L, Sanders JW (2004) On the morality of artificial agents. Mind Mach 3(14):349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankfurt H (1988a) Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. In: Frankfurt H (ed) The importance of what we care about. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Original work published 1969)Google Scholar
  14. Frankfurt H (1988b) Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. In: Frankfurt H (ed) The importance of what we care about. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Original work published 1971)Google Scholar
  15. Frankfurt H (1999) Autonomy, necessity and love. In: Frankfurt H (ed) Necessity, volition and love. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Original work published 1994)Google Scholar
  16. French P (1984) Collective and corporate responsibility. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray JC (1909–1921) The nature and sources of the law. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Green L (1988) The authority of the state. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Heckman C (1999) Liability for autonomous agent design. Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. Kluwer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. Herman B (2002) Bootstrapping. In: Buss S, Overton L (eds) Contours of agency. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Hexmoor H, Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (2003) A prospectus on agent autonomy. In: Hexmoor H (ed) Agent autonomy. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Holland O (2003) Machine consciousness. Special issue of J Conscious Stud 10(4/5)Google Scholar
  23. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Kane R (1996) The significance of free will. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelsen H (1967) Pure theory of law (Knight M, Trans.). University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  26. Knobe J (2003) Intentional action in folk psychology: an experimental investigation. Philos Psychol 16(2):309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Malle B, Knobe J (1997) The folk concept of intentionality. J Exp Soc Psychol 33:101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malle B, Nelson S (2003) Judging mens rea: the tension between folk concepts and legal concepts of intentionality. Behav Sci Law 21:563–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morse S (2004) New neuroscience, old problems. Neuroscience and the Law. Dana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Morse S (2004a) Reason, results, and criminal responsibility. Univ Ill Law Rev 2004(2):363–444Google Scholar
  32. Nadelhoffer T (2005) Skill, luck, control, and intentional action. Philos Psychol 18(3):341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Note (1987) The personification of the business corporation in American law. Univ Chic Law Rev 54:1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollock J (2006) Thinking about acting: logical foundations for rational decision making. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Raz J (1975) Practical reason and norms. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Restatement (Third) of Agency (2006) American Law Institute, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  37. Rivaud M (1992) Comment: toward a general theory of constitutional personhood: a theory of constitutional personhood for transgenic humanoid species. UCLA Law Rev 39:1425Google Scholar
  38. Rorty A (1976) The identity of persons. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  39. Schauer F (2004) The limited domain of law. Va Law Rev 90:1909–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Searle J (1980) Minds, brains and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3:417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Searle J (1999) Mind, language and Society. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Sloman A, Croucher M (1981) Why robots will have emotions. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  43. Solum L (1992) Legal personhood for artificial intelligences. North Carol Law Rev 70:1231Google Scholar
  44. Strawson P (1959) Individuals. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. van Inwagen P (1983) An essay on free will. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Wallach W (2004) Artificial morality: bounded rationality, bounded morality and emotions. In: Smit I, Lasker G (eds) Cognitive, emotive and ethical aspects of decision making in humans and artificial intelligence, vol I. IIAS, Windsor, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  47. Werhane P (1985) Persons, rights and corporations. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolff RP (1998) In defense of anarchism. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles (Original work published 1970)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Law, Science and Technology College of LawArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations