Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 41–51

Robots and reality: a reply to Robert Sparrow

Original Paper

Abstract

We commonly identify something seriously defective in a human life that is lived in ignorance of important but unpalatable truths. At the same time, some degree of misapprehension of reality may be necessary for individual health and success. Morally speaking, it is unclear just how insistent we should be about seeking the truth. Robert Sparrow has considered such issues in discussing the manufacture and marketing of robot ‘pets’, such as Sony’s doglike ‘AIBO’ toy and whatever more advanced devices may supersede it. Though it is not his only concern, Sparrow particularly criticizes such robot pets for their illusory appearance of being living things. He fears that some individuals will subconsciously buy into the illusion, and come to sentimentalize interactions that fail to constitute genuine relationships. In replying to Sparrow, I emphasize that this would be continuous with much of the minor sentimentality that we already indulge in from day to day. Although a disposition to seek the truth is morally virtuous, the virtue concerned must allow for at least some categories of exceptions. Despite Sparrow’s concerns about robot pets (and robotics more generally), we should be lenient about familiar, relatively benign, kinds of self-indulgence in forming beliefs about reality. Sentimentality about robot pets seems to fall within these categories. Such limited self-indulgence can co-exist with ordinary honesty and commitment to truth.

Keywords

Authenticity ELIZA effect Ethics of belief Robert Nozick Robotics Robot pets Self-deception Self-perception Sentimentality The Matrix Truth 

References

  1. Benson, O., & Stangroom, J. (2006). Why truth matters (pp. 164–165). London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  2. Blackford, R. (2004). Try the Blue Pill: What’s wrong with life in a simulation? In M. Kapell & W. G. Doty (Eds.), Jacking into the matrix Franchise: Cultural reception and interpretation (pp. 169–182). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  3. Clifford, W. K. (1999) The ethics of belief. First published 1876. In The ethics of belief and other essays (pp. 70–96). Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  4. Glover, J. (2001). Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century. First published 1999 (pp. 362–363). London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
  5. Hofstadter, D. (1995). Preface 4: The ineradicable Eliza effect and its dangers. In D. Hofstadter & The Fluid Analogies Research Group, (Eds.), Fluid concepts and creative analogies: Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought (pp. 155–168). New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  6. Joyce, R. (2001). The myth of morality (pp. 190–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kant, I. (1948) Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. First published 1785 (H. J. Paton, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Levy, N. (2004). Self-deception and moral responsibility. Ratio XVII: 294–311.Google Scholar
  9. Levy, D. (2007). Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot relationships. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  10. Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. McMahon, J. L. (2002). Popping a bitter pill: Existential authenticity in The Matrix and Nausea. In W. Irwin (Ed.), The matrix and philosophy: Welcome to the desert of the real (pp. 166–177). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  12. Nagel, T. (1979). Death. In Mortal Questions (pp. 1–10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia (pp. 42–45). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Snyder, C. R., & Higgins, R. L. (1988). Excuses: Their effective role in the negotiation of reality. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sparrow, R. (2002). The March of the robot dogs. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sparrow, R. (2009). Predators or plowshares? Time to consider arms control of robotic weapons. IEEE Technology and Society, 28, 25–29.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines, 16, 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Humanities and Social ScienceUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations