Skip to main content

Robotic Nudges: The Ethics of Engineering a More Socially Just Human Being

Abstract

Robots are becoming an increasingly pervasive feature of our personal lives. As a result, there is growing importance placed on examining what constitutes appropriate behavior when they interact with human beings. In this paper, we discuss whether companion robots should be permitted to “nudge” their human users in the direction of being “more ethical”. More specifically, we use Rawlsian principles of justice to illustrate how robots might nurture “socially just” tendencies in their human counterparts. Designing technological artifacts in such a way to influence human behavior is already well-established but merely because the practice is commonplace does not necessarily resolve the ethical issues associated with its implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. For the purposes of this paper, we are using the term “autonomy” in the sense of how it is normally defined within the realm of ethics (i.e., having the meaningful ability to make choices about one’s life); within the realm of robotics, “autonomy” typically refers to a robot or other intelligent system making a decision without a “human in the loop”.

  2. Embodiment and situatedness can of course overlap but they are two distinct concepts. Embodiment: A robot has a physical presence (a body). This spatial reality has consequences in its dynamic interactions with the world that cannot be simulated faithfully. Situatedness: A robot is an entity situated and surrounded by the real world. It does not operate upon abstract representations of reality, but rather reality itself (Arkin 1998).

  3. If constructing robots that could promote the aims of ethics, or more specifically social justice, is technically possible, a question arises about whether a moral imperative exists to build the technology (an issue that we will not seek to address here).

  4. Emphasizing the importance of the measures needed to address social justice, a United Nations committee states that “The well-being of citizens requires broad-based and sustainable economic growth, economic justice, the provision of employment opportunities, and more generally the existence of conditions for the optimal development of people as individuals and social beings” (2010, 7). Scholarly communities are just beginning to examine what role robots may have in relation to social justice concerns.

  5. The context we are discussing here relates more directly to professional practice (and not research environments). In the latter case, there are rules and regulations governing whether manipulation is appropriate (for example, those pertaining to IRB review and informed consent).

References

  • Anderson, S. L. (2008). Asimov’s “three laws of robotics” and machine metaethics. Ai & Society, 22(4), 477–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., & Berns, G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, R. C. (1998). Behavior-based robotics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, R. (2009). Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. Newyork: Chapman-Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, R. C. (1990). Integrating behavioral, perceptual, and world knowledge in reactive navigation. In P. Maes (Ed.), Designing autonomous agents (pp. 105–122). Bradford: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, R., Fujita, M., Takagi, T., & Hasegawa, R. (2003). An ethological and emotional basis for human-robot interaction. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, R. C., Scheutz, M., & Tickle-Degnen, L. (2014). Preserving dignity in patient caregiver relationships using moral emotions and robots. 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science and Technology, Chicago, IL.

  • Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). (1992). ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics. Accessed 24 Oct 2014.

  • Borenstein, J., & Pearson, Y. (2013). Companion robots and the emotional development of children. Law, Innovation and Technology, 5(2), 172–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, A., & Arkin, R. C. (2007). Behavioral overlays for non-verbal communication expression on a humanoid robot. Autonomous Robots, 22(1), 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutzman, D., Davis, D., Lucas Jr., G., & McGhee, R. (2013). Run-time ethics checking for autonomous unmanned vehicles: Developing a practical approach. Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology (UUST), Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

  • Clarke, R. (1993). Asimov’s laws of robotics: Implications for information technology-part I. Computer, 26(12), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G. (2014). Paternalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/paternalism/. Accessed 24 Oct 2014.

  • Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454(7208), 1079–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. 2013. Is it ok to torture or murder a robot? BBC, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131127-would-you-murder-a-robot. Accessed 24 Oct 2014.

  • Hansson, S. O. (2007). The ethics of enabling technology. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16(3), 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. E, Jr. (1977). Paternalism and the enforcement of morality. Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, 8(2), 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyson, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2011). Caring about caring: What adults can do to promote young children’s prosocial skills. YC Young Children, 66(4), 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE. (2014). IEEE code of ethics. http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2014.

  • Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. PNAS, 111(24), 8788–8790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. (2013). The nature of the bots: how people respond to robots, virtual agents and humans as multimodal stimuli. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM on International conference on multimodal interaction (ICMI ‘13) (pp. 337–340). New York, NY.

  • Morin, C. (2011). Neuromarketing: The new science of consumer behavior. Society, 48, 131–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moshkina, L. (2012). Improving request compliance through robot affect. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2031–2037.

  • Moshkina, L., Park, S., Arkin, R. C., Lee, J. K., & Jung, H. (2011). TAME: Time-varying affective response for humanoid robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(3), 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R., & Woods, D. D. (2009). Beyond asimov: The three laws of responsible robotics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(4), 14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). (2007). NSPE code of ethics for engineers. http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2014.

  • Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pear, R. (2013). Employers get leeway on health incentives. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/new-rules-give-employers-leeway-on-use-of-health-incentives.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2014.

  • Pearson, Y., & Borenstein, J. (2013). The intervention of robot caregivers and the cultivation of children’s capability to play. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2013). Getting moral enhancement right: the desirability of moral bioenhancement. Bioethics, 27(3), 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riek, L. D., & Howard, D. (2014). A code of ethics for the human-robot interaction profession. Presented at WeRobot 2014 Conference, University of Miami.

  • Salter, T., Werry, I., & Michaud, F. (2008). Going into the wild in child–robot interaction studies: Issues in social robotic development. Intelligent Service Robotics, 1(2), 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvini, P., Datteri, E., Laschi, C., & Dario, P. (2008). Scientific models and ethical issues in hybrid bionic systems research. Ai & Society, 22(3), 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvini, P., Laschi, C., & Dario, P. (2010). Design for acceptability: Improving robots’ coexistence in human society. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 451–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1982). Equality of what. In A. Sen (Ed.), Choice, welfare and measurement (pp. 353–369). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, M. (2003). The sense-think-act paradigm revisited, 1st International Workshop on Robotic Sensing (ROSE’ 03), 5.

  • Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for war. New York: The Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R. (2002). The march of the robot dogs. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(4), 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R. (2014). Egalitarianism and moral bioenhancement. The American Journal of Bioethics, 14(4), 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, J.-Y., Guo, L., Grinter, R. E., & Christensen, H. I. (2007). My roomba is rambo: Intimate home appliances. UbiComp 2007: Ubiquitous computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4717, 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, F., & Johnston, O. (1981). The illusion of life: Disney animation. New York: Hyperion.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations, The International Forum for Social Development. (2010). Social justice in an open world: The role of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/ifsd/SocialJustice.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2014.

  • Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2009). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Borenstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borenstein, J., Arkin, R. Robotic Nudges: The Ethics of Engineering a More Socially Just Human Being. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 31–46 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9636-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9636-2

Keywords

  • Autonomy
  • Design ethics
  • Nudges
  • Paternalism
  • Robot ethics
  • Robot companions
  • Rawls
  • Social justice