Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 217–221 | Cite as

Personal Robots, Appearance, and Human Good: A Methodological Reflection on Roboethics

  • Mark Coeckelbergh
Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

The development of pet robots, toy robots, and sex robots suggests a near-future scenario of habitual living with ‘personal’ robots. How should we evaluate their potential impact on the quality of our lives and existence?

In this paper, I argue for an approach to ethics of personal robots that advocates a methodological turn from robots to humans, from mind to interaction, from intelligent thinking to social-emotional being, from reality to appearance, from right to good, from external criteria to good internal to practice, and from theory to experience and imagination. First I outline what I take to be a common approach to roboethics, then I sketch the contours of an alternative methodology: ethics of personal robots as an ethics of appearance, human good, experience, and imagination.

The result is a sketch of an empirically informed anthropocentric ethics that aims at understanding and evaluating what robots do to humans as social and emotional beings in virtue of their appearance, in particular how they may contribute to human good and human flourishing. Starting from concrete experience and practice and being sufficiently sensitive to individual and cultural differences, this approach invites us to be attentive to how human good emerges in human–robot interaction and to imagine, possibilities of living with personal robots that help to constitute good human lives.

Keywords

Personal robots Ethics of robotics Appearance Human flourishing Artificial intelligence 

References

  1. 1.
    Cerqui D, Arras KO (2001) Human beings and robots: towards a symbiosis? In: Carrasquero J et al (eds) A 2000 people survey. Post-conference proceedings PISTA 03 (Politics and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications), pp 408–413 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Turkle S (2005) Relational artefacts/children/elders: the complexities of cybercompanions. In: Android science workshop, Stresa (Italy). Cognitive Science Society, pp 62–73 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levy D (2007) Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human–robot relationships. Harper Collins, New York Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haselager WFG (2005) Robotics, philosophy and the problems of autonomy. Pragmat Cogn 13(3):515–532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Floridi L, Sanders JW (2004) On the morality of artificial agents. Minds Mach 14:349–379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asaro P (2006) What should we want from a robot ethic? Int Rev Inf Ethics 6:10–16 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark A, Grush R (1999) Towards a cognitive robotics. Adapt Behav 7(1):5–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark A (2001) Reasons, robots and the extended mind. Mind Lang 16(2):121–145 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Epstein RG (1999) Review of Hans Moravec, Robot: Mere machine to a transcendent mind. Ethics Inf Technol 1:227–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59:433–460 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Searl J (1980) Minds, brains and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3(3):417–457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kitamura T, Tahara T, Asami K-I (2000) How can a robot have consciousness? Adv Robot 14(4):263–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Torrance S (2007) Ethics and consciousness in artificial agents. Artif Intell Soc 22:495–521 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ishii K (2006) Cognitive robotics to understand human beings. Q Rev 20:11–32 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levy D (2008) The ethical treatment of artificially conscious robots. Paper presented at the 1st international conference on human–robot personal relationships, Maastricht University, June 13, 2008 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Veruggio G (2006) EURON roboethics roadmap (release 1.1). EURON Roboethics Atelier, Genua Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruce A, Nourbakhsh I, Simmons R (2002) The role of expressiveness and attention in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE international conference on robotics & automation, Washington, DC, May 2002, pp 4138–4142 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42:177–190 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mori M (1970) Bukimi no tani (The uncanny valley). Energy 7(4):33–35. (Original in Japanese, translated by MacDorman KF & Minato T) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Breazeal C (2003) Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. Int J Human–Comp Stud 59:119–155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taggart W, Turkle S, Kidd CD (2005) An interactive robot in a nursing home: preliminary remarks. In: Android science workshop, Stresa (Italy). Cognitive Science Society, pp 56–61 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramey CH (2005) “For the sake of others”: the personal ethics of human–android interaction. In: Android science workshop, Stresa (Italy). Cognitive Science Society, pp 137–148 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nussbaum MC (2006) Frontiers of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coeckelbergh M (2009) Health care, capabilities, and AI assistive technologies. Ethic Theory Moral Pract (forthcoming) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations