Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 79–96 | Cite as

Machines as Moral Patients We Shouldn’t Care About (Yet): The Interests and Welfare of Current Machines

Special Issue

Abstract

In order to determine whether current (or future) machines have a welfare that we as agents ought to take into account in our moral deliberations, we must determine which capacities give rise to interests and whether current machines have those capacities. After developing an account of moral patiency, I argue that current machines should be treated as mere machines. That is, current machines should be treated as if they lack those capacities that would give rise to psychological interests. Therefore, they are moral patients only if they have non-psychological interests. I then provide an account of what I call teleo interests that constitute the most plausible type of non-psychological interest that a being might have. I then argue that even if current machines have teleo interests, they are such that agents need not concern themselves with these interests. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, current machines are not moral patients.

Keywords

AI ethics Moral status Machine Interests Moral considerability 

References

  1. Basl, John, and Ronald Sandler (2013a). “The Good of Non-Sentient Entities: Organisms, Artifacts, and Synthetic Biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences (in press).Google Scholar
  2. Basl, John, and Ronald Sandler. (2013b). “Three Puzzles Regarding the Moral Status of Synthetic Organisms.” In “Artificial Life”: Synthetic Biology and the Bounds of Nature, ed. G. Kaebnick. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (in press).Google Scholar
  3. Behrends, J. (2011). A New Argument for the Multiplicity of the Good-for Relation. Journal of Value Inquiry, 45(2), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovenkerk, B., Brom, F. W. A., & Van Den Bergh, B. J. (2002). Brave New Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics. The Hastings Center Report, 32(1), 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cahen, Harley (2002) “Against the Moral Considerability of Ecosystems.” In Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, ed. Andrew Light and H. Rolston III. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Feinberg, J. (1963). The Rights of Animals and Future Generations. Columbia Law Review, 63, 673.Google Scholar
  7. Feldman, F. (2004). Pleasure and the Good Life: Concerning the Nature, Varieties and Plausibility of Hedonism. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Floridi, L. (2002). On the Intrinsic Value of Information Objects and the Infosphere. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(4), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forber, P. (2005). On the Explanatory Roles of Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy, 20(2–3), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ortiz, G., & Elizabeth, S. (2004). Beyond Welfare: Animal Integrity, Animal Dignity, and Genetic Engineering. Ethics & the Environment, 9(1), 94–120.Google Scholar
  11. Goodpaster, K. (1978). On Being Morally Considerable. The Journal of Philosophy, 75, 308–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gould, Stephen J., and Richard Lewontin (1979) “The Spandrels of San Marcos and the Panglossian Paradigm.” Optimizing Learning and Evolutionary Change in Behavior 153Google Scholar
  13. Griffin, J. (1988). Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McMahan, Jeff (2009) Killing in War. 1st ed. OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Millikan, R. G. (1989). In Defense of Proper Functions. Philosophy of Science, 56(2), 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Millikan, R. G. (1999). Wings, Spoons, Pills, and Quills: A Pluralist Theory of Function. The Journal of Philosophy, 96(4), 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neander, K. (1988). What Does Natural Selection Explain? Correction to Sober. Philosophy of Science, 55, 422–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neander, K. (1991). Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst’s Defense. Philosophy of Science, 58(2), 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neander, Karen (2008) “The Teleological Notion of ‘Function’.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69 (4) (March 24): 454 – 468.Google Scholar
  20. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Nussbaum, Martha C (2001). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. O’Neill, John (2003) “The Varieties of Intrinsic Value.” In Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, ed. Holmes III Rolston and Andrew Light.Google Scholar
  23. Rosati, C. S. (2009). Relational Good and the Multiplicity Problem1. Philosophical Issues, 19(1), 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandler, Ronald (2007) Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sandler, R., & Simons, L. (2012). The Value of Artefactual Organisms. Environmental Values, 21(1), 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sen, Amartya (1993) “Capability and Well-Being.” In The Quality of Life, ed. Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, 1:30–54. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Singer, Peter (2009) Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. Reissue. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.Google Scholar
  28. Sober, E. (1984). The Nature of Selection. MA: MIT Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Streiffer, Robert, and John Basl (2011) “Applications of Biotechnology to Animals in Agriculture.” In The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics, ed. T Beauchamp and R Frey. Oxford.Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, P. W. (1989). Respect for Nature. Studies in Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997). Primate Cognition (1st ed.). USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Varner, G. (1998). In Nature’s Interest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wright, L. (1973). Functions. Philosophical Review, 82, 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and ReligionNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations