The Montréal Declaration for Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence states that emerging technologies ought not “encourage cruel behaviour towards robots that take on the appearance of human beings or animals and act in a similar fashion.” The idea of a causal link between cruelty and kindness to artificial and living beings, human or animal, is controversial and underexplored, despite its increasing relevance to robotics. Kate Darling recently marshalled Immanuel Kant’s argument—that cruelty to animals promotes cruelty to people—to argue for an analogous link concerning social robots. Others, such as Johnson and Verdicchio, have counter-argued that animal analogies are often flawed, partly because they ignore social robots’ true nature, including their lack of sentience. This, they say, weakens Darling’s argument that social robots will have virtue-promoting or vice-promoting effects regarding our treatment of living beings. Certain ideas in this debate, including those of anthropomorphism, projection, animal analogies, and Kant’s causal claim, require clarification and critical attention. Concentrating on robot animals, this paper examines strengths and weaknesses on both sides of this argument. It finds there is some reason for thinking that social robots may causally affect virtue, especially in terms of the moral development of children and responses to nonhuman animals. This conclusion has implications for future robot design and interaction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
We use autonomous  here to mean the capacity to self-initiate action and to exhibit agency (relatively) independently of human control, including acts of self-maintenance and self-preservation (cf. a laptop computer).
Although Kant’s claim here relates to the development of virtue/vice, Kant himself was clearly not a virtue ethicist. Nor are the details of his deontological position particularly relevant for Darling (or us), other than what bears on his causal claim about the effects of cruelty/kindness to animals.
Actually, some studies  suggest slaughter-workers have more human-directed aggression (and less empathy for animals). However, Johnson and Verdicchio may argue that these studies are not conclusive.
Note that Johnson and Verdicchio do acknowledge that the carryover effects of violent films and the like remains an “unresolved issue” [15, p 299].
It is a live, if unsettled, question whether routine slaughter-work causally predisposes to mistreatment of other animals and humans.
It is important to stress that empirical studies alone (e.g. see Sect. 2) cannot resolve these conceptual questions.
The word projection is itself perhaps redolent of an act involving misattributed qualities.
This is, of course, contestable. Johnson and Verdicchio deny it: “Moral patients derive their moral status from their capacity to suffer and be harmed” [15, p 295]. So would many others. Some, however, deny that sentience is necessary for moral patiency (though they may not attribute intrinsic moral standing to robots or nonliving entities) .
Montréal Declaration for Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence (2016) https://www.montrealdeclaration-responsibleaicom/the-declaration
Levy D (2009) The ethical treatment of artificially conscious robots International. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):209–216
Anderson M, Anderson SL (eds) (2011) Machine ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Gunkel D (2012) The machine question: critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. MIT Press, Cambridge
Wallach W, Allen C (2009) Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sullins JP (2006) When is a robot a moral agent? Int Rev Inf Ethics 6(12):23–30
Sparrow R (2017) Robots, rape, and representation. Int J Soc Robot 9(4):465–477
Cappuccio ML, Peeters A, McDonald W (2019) Sympathy for Dolores: moral consideration for robots based on virtue and recognition. Philos Technol (online), 1–23. https://www.rdcube/braeT
Darling K (2016) Extending legal protection to social robots: the effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behaviour towards robotic objects. In: Calo R, Froomkin AM, Kerr I (eds) Robot law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 213–231
Anderson SL (2011) The unacceptability of Asimov’s three laws of robotics as a basis for machine ethics. In: Anderson M, Anderson SL (eds) Machine ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 285–296
Kant I ([1784–5]1997) Moral philosophy: Collin’s lecture notes. In: Heath P, Schneewind JB (eds and trans) Lectures on ethics (Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 37–222
Calo R (2015) Robotics and the lessons of cyberlaw. California Law Review 103:513–563
Coeckelbergh M (2018) Why care about robots? Empathy, moral standing, and the language of suffering. Kairos J Philos Sci 20(1):41–158
Black D (2019) Machines with faces: robot bodies and the problem of cruelty. Body Soc 25(2):3–27
Johnson DG, Verdicchio M (2018) Why robots should not be treated like animals. Ethics Inf Technol 20(4):291–301
Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D (2012) Social categorization of social robots: anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Br J Soc Psychol 51(4):724–731
Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81
Hursthouse R (1999) On virtue ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Swanton C (2003) Virtue ethics: a pluralistic view. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Ross WD (1930) The right and the good. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Aristotle (2003) The Nicomachean ethics. Penguin Classics, London
Singer P (1995) Animal liberation. Random House, London
Regan T (2004) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, Berkeley
Hursthouse R (2013) Ethics, humans and other animals: an introduction with readings. Routledge, London
Kahn PH, Friedman B, Perez-Granados DR, Freier NG (2006) Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. Interact Stud 7(3):405–436
Dautenhahn K (2013) Human–robot interaction. In: Soegaard M, Dam RF (eds) The encyclopedia of human–computer interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Foundation, Aarhus
Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35
Coghlan S, Waycott J, Neve BB, Vetere F (2018) Using robot pets instead of companion animals for older people: a case of ‘reinventing the wheel’? In: Proceedings of the 30th Australian conference on computer–human interaction, pp 172–183
Sandry E (2015) Re-evaluating the form and communication of social robots. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):335–346
Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):167–175
Melson GF, Kahn Jr PH, Beck AM, Friedman B, Roberts T, Garrett E (2005) Robots as dogs? Children’s interactions with the robotic dog AIBO and a live Australian shepherd. In: CHI’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1649–1652
Friedman B, Kahn Jr PH, Hagman J (2003) Hardware companions? What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human–robotic relationship. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 273–280
Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Whitby B (2008) Sometimes it’s hard to be a robot: a call for action on the ethics of abusing artificial agents. Interact Comput 20:338–341
de Graaf MM (2016) An ethical evaluation of human–robot relationships. Int J Soc Robot 8(4):589–598
Turkle S (2017) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Hachette, New York
Hamill J (2017) Office mounts touching memorial for security robot that drowned itself. New York Post https://www.nypostcom/2017/07/20/office-mounts-touching-memorial-for-security-robot-that-drowned-itself/
Every time Boston Dynamics has abused a robot (2017) YouTube. https://youtu.be/4PaTWufUqqU
Sparrow R (2016) Kicking a robot dog. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 229–229
Seo SH, Geiskkovitch D, Nakane M, King C, Young, JE (2015) Poor thing! Would you feel sorry for a simulated robot? A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot. In: 2015 10th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 125–132
Bartneck C, Hu J (2008) Exploring the abuse of robots. Interact Stud 9(3):415–433
Carpenter J (2016) Culture and human–robot interaction in militarized spaces: a war story. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlanticcom/technology/archive/2013/09/funerals-for-fallen-robots/279861/
Nomura T, Kanda T, Kidokoro H, Suehiro Y, Yamada S (2016) Why do children abuse robots? Interact Stud 17(3):347–369
Dadds MR, Turner CM, McAloon J (2002) Developmental links between cruelty to animals and human violence. Aust N Z J Criminol 35(3):363–382
Coeckelbergh M (2011) Humans, animals, and robots: a phenomenological approach to human–robot relations. Int J Soc Robot 3(2):197–204
Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3/4):177
Damiano L, Dumouchel P (2018) Anthropomorphism in human–robot co-evolution. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468
Hegel F, Krach S, Kircher T, Wrede B, Sagerer G (2008) Understanding social robots: a user study on anthropomorphism. In: RO-MAN 2008—the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 574–579
Anderson CA, Bushman BJ (2001) Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychol Sci 12(5):353–359
Ferguson CJ (2015) Does movie or video game violence predict societal violence? It depends on what you look at and when. J Commun 65(1):193–212
Calverley D (2006) Android science and animal rights, does an analogy exist? Connect Sci 18(4):403–417
Hogan K (2017) Is the machine question the same question as the animal question? Ethics Inf Technol 19:29–38
Richards E, Signal T, Taylor N (2013) A different cut? Comparing attitudes toward animals and propensity for aggression within two primary industry cohorts—farmers and meatworkers. Soc Anim 21(4):395–413
Johnson DG, Verdicchio M (2017) AI anxiety. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 68(9):2267–2270
Dowsett A, Jackson M (2019) The effect of violence and competition within video games on aggression. Comput Hum Behav 99:22–27
Ferguson CJ, Colwell J (2018) A meaner, more callous digital world for youth? The relationship between violent digital games, motivation, bullying, and civic behavior among children. Psychol Pop Med Cult 7(3):202
Shibuya A, Sakamoto A, Ihori N, Yukawa S (2008) The effects of the presence and contexts of video game violence on children: a longitudinal study in Japan. Simul Gaming 39(4):528–539
Arluke A (2002) Animal abuse as dirty play. Symb Interact 25(4):405–430
Gullone E (2012) Animal cruelty, antisocial behaviour, and aggression: more than a link. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Kant I ((1998) Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Gregor MJ (trans). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
O’Neill O (1998) June) Kant on duties regarding nonrational nature. Aristot Soc Suppl 71(1):211–228
Rozuel C (2011) The moral threat of compartmentalization: self, roles and responsibility. J Bus Ethics 102(4):685–697
Monte CF (1997) Beneath the mask: an introduction to theories of personality, 6th edn. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth
Fink J (2012). Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human–robot interaction. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 199–208
Airenti G (2015) The cognitive bases of anthropomorphism: from relatedness to empathy. Int J Soc Robot 7(1):117–127
Turkle S (2007) Authenticity in the age of digital companions. Interact Stud 8:501–517. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.11tur
Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):347–360
Melson GF, Kahn PH Jr, Beck A, Friedman B, Roberts T, Garrett E, Gill BT (2009) Children’s behavior toward and understanding of robotic and living dogs. J Appl Dev Psychol 30(2):92–102
Rodogno R (2016) Social robots, fiction, and sentimentality. Ethics Inf Technol 18(4):257–268
Lamarque P (1981) How can we fear and pity fictions? Br J Aesthet 21(4):291–304
Schneider S (2006) The paradox of fiction. The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. http://www.ieputmedu/f/fict-parhtm
Sparrow R (2002) The march of the robot dogs. Ethics Inf Technol 4(4):305–318
Darling K, Nandy P, Breazeal C (2015) Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction. In: 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 770–775
Rosenthal-von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC, Hoffmann L, Sobieraj S, Eimler SC (2013) An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. Int J Soc Robot 5(1):17–34
The Good Place (2018) Chapter 7: The eternal shriek. Netflix, Scotts Valley
Horstmann AC, Bock N, Linhuber E, Szczuka JM, Straßmann C, Krämer NC (2018) Do a robot’s social skills and its objection discourage interactants from switching the robot off? PLoS ONE 13(7):e0201581
Damon W, Lerner RM, Eisenberg N (eds) (2006) Handbook of child psychology, social, emotional, and personality development, vol 3. Wiley, Hoboken
Vollmer AL, Read R, Trippas D, Belpaeme T (2018) Children conform, adults resist: a robot group induced peer pressure on normative social conformity. Sci Robot. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat7111
Goodliff G, Canning N, Parry J, Miller L (eds) (2017) Young children’s play and creativity: multiple voices. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon
Carr D, Harrison T (2015) Educating character through stories. Imprint Academic, Exeter
Almerico GM (2014) Building character through literacy with children’s literature. Res Higher Educ J 26
Coeckelbergh M (2010) Moral appearances: emotions, robots, and human morality. Ethics Inf Technol 12(3):235–241
Taylor PW (2011) Respect for nature: a theory of environmental ethics. Princeton University Press, Princeton
We would like to thank the anonymous referees for their very helpful comments.
Funding was provided by Australian Research Council (AU) (Grant No. FT170100420) and the Melbourne Networked Society Institute.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Coghlan, S., Vetere, F., Waycott, J. et al. Could Social Robots Make Us Kinder or Crueller to Humans and Animals?. Int J of Soc Robotics 11, 741–751 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00583-2
- Social robots
- Companion robots
- Moral virtue