Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing Virtuous Sex Robots

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose that virtue ethics can be used to address ethical issues central to discussions about sex robots. In particular, we argue virtue ethics is well equipped to focus on the implications of sex robots for human moral character. Our evaluation develops in four steps. First, we present virtue ethics as a suitable framework for the evaluation of human–robot relationships. Second, we show the advantages of our virtue ethical account of sex robots by comparing it to current instrumentalist approaches, showing how the former better captures the reciprocal interaction between robots and their users. Third, we examine how a virtue ethical analysis of intimate human–robot relationships could inspire the design of robots that support the cultivation of virtues. We suggest that a sex robot which is equipped with a consent-module could support the cultivation of compassion when used in supervised, therapeutic scenarios. Fourth, we discuss the ethical implications of our analysis for user autonomy and responsibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Other influential virtue ethical traditions originated with, for example, Confucius or Buddhism. For reasons of space, we shall restrict ourselves to a (neo-)Aristotelian account of virtue, but we suspect that the investigation of other virtue traditions could yield an interesting intercultural approach to the ethics of social robotics. See also [51].

  2. Isaac Asimov’s famous laws of robotics, often cited as illustration in the ethics of AI literature, are modelled after deontological formulations of how one ought to act. They brilliantly showcase the inherent tension between deontological robotic directives and the potentially disastrous consequences that strict adherence to these might have.

  3. It is worth noting that on Sparrow’s account one will have to bite the bullet and say that rape-play by consenting adults is morally wrong as well. Not everyone will be willing to accept this implication.

  4. Obviously, the consent provided by a robot does not amount to legally binding consent, just like the rape of a robot would not constitute legal rape, for the simple reason that a robot is not a legal person and not a sentient being. Hence, we are discussing here the implications of a robot behaving in a certain way, not necessarily implying the existence of human-like cognitive, emotional states or identical legal status.

  5. Sparrow [47] finds it “much less plausible that sustaining kind and loving relationships with robots can be sufficient to make us virtuous” (p. 473). He acknowledges, however, that such a claim needs to be supported by an argument as to why virtues are to be held against a standard different from vices and that this is a topic for further discussion. We do not share his intuition, though we agree with his latter point and would furthermore like to add that more empirical data on how human–robot interaction influences human behaviour is needed—which is one of the motivations for the proposal in Sect. 4 of the present paper.

  6. This also illustrates that robot-sex is not or need not always be wrong. This would be as extravagant a claim as the suggestion that masturbation is always wrong.

  7. The Swedish science-fiction television drama Äkta människor (Real humans, 2012) depicts an example of this when the relationship between Therese (Camilla Larsson) and her husband turns sour because he grows jealous of her ‘hubot’—a humanoid robot capable of exactly the functions Levy discusses. This depiction is fictional of course, but the force of the story at least casts doubt on any outright dismissal of the possibility that humans will become jealous of robots.

  8. On the other hand, one might argue, as Sparrow does, that a non-consenting robot could potentially facilitate (the representation of) rape scenarios even more if the human partner ignores the robot’s consent. We do not have a solution for that problem here (although, for example, a simple ‘complete close-and-shutdown’ routine might be an option), but it is a main reason why we later in this paper suggest to test this kind of human–robot interaction in a therapeutic setting first, as testing under supervision may give us new insights on how to potentially deal with issues such as these. In any case, we are not convinced that this argument is sufficient to not further investigate the potential benefits of consenting robots.

  9. In the spirit of virtue ethics, one could consider Dependent Personality Disorder (DPD) to be the other extreme on the compassion spectrum [6]:

    They are willing to submit to what others want, even if the demands are unreasonable. Their need to maintain an important bond will often result in imbalanced or distorted relationships. They may make extraordinary self-sacrifices or tolerate verbal, physical, or sexual abuse.

    It would be interesting to investigate how love and sex robots could be relevant for training and therapy for members of this group as well.

References

  1. Abbey A (1991) Acquaintance rape and alcohol consumption on college campuses: how are they linked? J Am Coll Health 39(4):165–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.1991.9936229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abbey A (1991) Misperception as an antecedent of acquaintance rape: a consequence of ambiguity in communication between men and women. In: Parrot A, Bechhofer L (eds) Acquaintance rape: the hidden crime. Academic press, New York, pp 96–111

    Google Scholar 

  3. Abney K (2012) Robotics, ethical theory, and metaethics: a guide for the perplexed. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 35–52

    Google Scholar 

  4. Adams-Curtis LE, Forbes GB (2004) College women’s experiences of sexual coercion. Trauma Violence Abus 5(2):91–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Allen C, Varner G, Zinser J (2000) Prolegomena to any future artificial moral agent. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 12(3):251–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09528130050111428

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. American Psychiatric Association (2013) Personality disorders. In: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. American Psychiatric Association: Philadelphia. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm18

  7. Article 36: Killing by machine: key issues for understanding meaningful human control (2015). http://www.article36.org/autonomous-weapons/killing-by-machine-key-issues-for-understanding-meaningful-human-control/

  8. Banyard VL, Ward S, Cohn ES, Plante EG, Moorhead C, Walsh W (2007) Unwanted sexual contact on campus: a comparison of women’s and men’s experiences. Violence Vict 22(1):52–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bedaf S, Draper H, Gelderblom GJ, Sorell T, de Witte L (2016) Can a service robot which supports independent living of older people disobey a command? the views of older people informal carers and professional caregivers on the acceptability of robots. Int J Soc Robot 8(3):409–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0336-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bender DS (2012) Mirror, mirror on the wall: Reflecting on narcissism. J Clin Psychol 68(8):877–885. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Björling EA, Rose E, Davidson A, Ren R, Wong D (2019) Can we keep him forever? Teens’ engagement and desire for emotional connection with a social robot. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00539-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Borges AM, Banyard VL, Moynihan MM (2008) Clarifying consent: primary prevention of sexual assault on a college campus. J Prev Interv Community 36(1–2):75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852350802022324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Breazeal CL (ed) (2002) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Byers ES, Heinlein L (1989) Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities in married and cohabiting couples. J Sex Res 26:210–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cappuccio ML, Peeters A, McDonald W (2019) Sympathy for Dolores: moral consideration for robots based on virtue and recognition. Philos Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-0341-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Clark A (2007) Soft selves and ecological control. In: Ross D, Spurrett D, Kincaid H, Stephens GL (eds) Distributed cognition and the will: individual volition and social context. MIT Press, New York, pp 101–122

    Google Scholar 

  17. Coeckelbergh M (2012) Growing moral relations: critique of moral status ascription. Palgrave, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Danaher J, McArthur N (eds) (2017) Robot sex. Social and ethical implications. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Danielson P (ed) (1992) Artificial morality: virtuous robots for virtual games. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deng B (2015) Machine ethics: the robot’s dilemma. Nature 523(7558):24–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/523024a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dhawan N, Kunik ME, Oldham J, Coverdale J (2010) Prevalence and treatment of narcissistic personality disorder in the community: a systematic review. Compr Psychiatry 51(4):333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2009.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Di Paolo EA, Buhrmann T, Barandiaran XE (2017) Sensorimotor life: an enactive proposal. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198786849.001.0001

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Fernandes K, Cardoso JS, Astrup BS (2018) A deep learning approach for the forensic evaluation of sexual assault. Pattern Anal Appl 21(3):629–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10044-018-0694-3

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Fischer JM, Ravizza M (1998) Responsibility and control: a theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Floridi L, Sanders JW (2004) On the morality of artificial agents. Mind Mach 14(3):349–379. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fröding BEE (2011) Cognitive enhancement, virtue ethics and the good life. Neuroethics 4(3):223–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-010-9092-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gips J (1995) Towards the ethical robot. In: Ford KM (ed) Android epistemology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 243–252

    Google Scholar 

  28. Goetz JL, Keltner D, Simon-Thomas E (2010) Compassion: an evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychol Bull 136(3):351–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Güçlütürk Y, Güçlü U, Baró X, Escalante HJ, Guyon I, Escalera S, van Gerven MAJ, van Lier R (2017) Multimodal first impression analysis with deep residual networks. IEEE Trans Affect Comput. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2751469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Humphreys TP (2004) Understanding sexual consent: an empirical investigation of the normative script for young heterosexual adults. In: Cowling M, Reynolds P (eds) Making sense of sexual consent. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  31. Janssen JH, Tacken P, de Vries JGJ, van den Broek EL, Westerink JH, Haselager P, IJsselsteijn WA (2013) Machines outperform laypersons in recognizing emotions elicited by autobiographical recollection. Hum Comput Interact 28(6):479–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2012.755421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Levy D (2007) Intimate relationships with artificial partners. Maastricht University, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  33. Levy D (2007) Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human–robot relationships. Harper-Perennial, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Levy D (2012) The ethics of robot prostitutes. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 223–232

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lim GY, Roloff ME (1999) Attributing sexual consent. J Appl Commun Res 27(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Miranda JA, Canabal MF, Portela García M, Lopez-Ongil C (2011) Embedded emotion recognition: Autonomous multimodal affective internet of things. In: Palumbo F, Pilato C, Pulina L, Sau C (eds) Proceedings of the cyber-physical systems workshop 2018, vol 2208. Alghero, Italy, pp 22–29

    Google Scholar 

  37. Richardson K (2016) Sex robot matters: slavery, the prostituted, and the rights of machines. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 35(2):46–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2016.2554421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rituerto-González E, Mínguez-Sánchez A, Gallardo-Antolín A, Peláez-Moreno C (2019) Data augmentation for speaker identification under stress conditions to combat gender-based violence. Appl Sci 9(11):2298. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9112298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Scheutz M (2012) The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 205–222

    Google Scholar 

  40. Scheutz M, Arnold T (2017) Intimacy, bonding, and sex robots: examining empirical results and exploring ethical ramifications. In: Danaher J, McArthur N (eds) Robot sex. Social and ethical implications. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 247–260

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sharkey N (2008) The ethical frontiers of robotics. Science 322(5909):1800–1801. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sharkey N, van Wynsberghe A, Robbins S, Hancock E (eds) (2017) Our sexual future with robots: a foundation for responsible robotics consultation report. Foundation for Responsible Robotics

  43. Shirado H, Christakis N (2017) Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments. Nature 545(7654):370–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Santoni de Sio F, van den Hoven J (2018) Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: a philosophical account. Front Robot AI 5:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sparrow R (2002) The march of the robot dogs. Ethics Inf Technol 4(4):305–318. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021386708994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sparrow R (2016) Kicking a robot dog. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), IEEE, p 229, https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451756

  47. Sparrow R (2017) Robots, rape, and representation. Int J Social Robot 9(4):465–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0413-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Strikwerda L (2017) Legal and moral implications of child sex robots. In: Danaher J, McArthur N (eds) Robot sex. Social and ethical implications. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 133–152

    Google Scholar 

  49. Tonkens R (2012) Out of character: on the creation of virtuous machines. Ethics Inf Technol 14(2):137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-012-9290-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Traeger M, Sebo S, Jung M, Scassellati B, Christakis N (2019) Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team. Presented at Center for Empirical Research on Stratification and Inequality Spring 2019 Workshop at Yale University on January 31 (Unpublished manuscript)

  51. Vallor S (2016) Technology and the virtues: a philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Verbeek PP (2011) Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Wallach W, Allen C (2009) Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. Winfield AFT, Blum C, Liu W (2014) Towards an ethical robot: internal, models consequences and ethical action selection. In: Mistry M, Leonardis A, Witkowski M, Melhuish C (eds) Lecture notes in computer science and advances in autonomous robotics systems, vol 8717. Springer, New York, pp 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10401-0_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Yamaji Y, Miyake T, Yoshiike Y, De Silva PRS, Okada M (2011) STB: child-dependent sociable trash box. Int J Soc Robot 3(4):359–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0114-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this paper to our late colleague, teacher, and friend Louis Vuurpijl, who, with infectious enthusiasm, guided many students in their first steps into the field of robotics. Many thanks to Nick Brancazio, Miguel Segundo-Ortin, and several anonymous reviewers for their feedback on a previous draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts (Building 19), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

    Anco Peeters

  2. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Pim Haselager

Authors
  1. Anco Peeters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pim Haselager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anco Peeters.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peeters, A., Haselager, P. Designing Virtuous Sex Robots. Int J of Soc Robotics 13, 55–66 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00592-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00592-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation