Advertisement

Beyond the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Formal Model of True Self-sacrifice

  • Naveen Sundar GovindarajuluEmail author
  • Selmer Bringsjord
  • Rikhiya Ghosh
  • Matthew Peveler
Chapter
Part of the Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering book series (ISCA, volume 95)

Abstract

The doctrine of double effect (\(\mathcal {{DDE}}\)) is an ethical principle that can account for human judgment in moral dilemmas: situations in which all available options have large good and bad consequences. We have previously formalized \(\mathcal {{DDE}}\) in a computational logic that can be implemented in robots. \(\mathcal {{DDE}}\), as an ethical principle for robots, is attractive for a number of reasons: (1) Empirical studies have found that \(\mathcal {{DDE}}\) is used by untrained humans; (2) many legal systems use \(\mathcal {{DDE}}\); and finally, (3) the doctrine is a hybrid of the two major opposing families of ethical theories (consequentialist/utilitarian theories versus deontological theories). In spite of all its attractive features, we have found that \(\mathcal {{DDE}}\) does not fully account for human behavior in many ethically challenging situations. Specifically, standard \(\mathcal {{DDE}}\) fails in situations wherein humans have the option of self-sacrifice. Accordingly, we present an enhancement of our \(\mathcal {{DDE}}\)-formalism to handle self-sacrifice; we end by looking ahead to future work.

Keywords

Doctrine of double effect True self-sacrifice Law and ethics Logic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research described above has been in no small part enabled by generous support from ONR (morally competent machines and the cognitive calculi upon which they are based) and AFOSR (unprecedentedly high computational intelligence achieved via automated reasoning), and we are deeply grateful for this funding.

References

  1. 1.
    Allsopp ME (2011) The doctrine of double effect in US law: exploring neil gorsuch’s analyses. Natl Cathol Bioeth Q 11(1):31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arkoudas K, Bringsjord S (2008) Toward formalizing common-sense psychology: an analysis of the false-belief task. In: Ho TB, Zhou ZH (eds) Proceedings of the tenth pacific rim international conference on artificial intelligence (PRICAI 2008), Springer-Verlag, no. 5351 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), pp 17–29. http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/KA_SB_PRICAI08_AI_off.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arkoudas K, Bringsjord S (2009) Propositional attitudes and causation. Int J Softw Inform 3(1):47–65. http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/PRICAI_w_sequentcalc_041709.pdf
  4. 4.
    Bringsjord S (2017) A 21st-century ethical hierarchy for robots and persons: \(\cal{EH}\). In: A world with robots: international conference on robot ethics: ICRE 2015, Springer, Lisbon, Portugal, vol 84, p 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bringsjord S, Govindarajulu NS (2013) Toward a modern geography of minds, machines, and math. In: Müller VC (ed) Philosophy and theory of artificial intelligence, studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics, vol 5, Springer, New York, NY, pp 151–165.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31674-6_11, http://www.springerlink.com/content/hg712w4l23523xw5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bringsjord S, Govindarajulu NS, Thero D, Si M (2014) Akratic robots and the computational logic thereof. In: Proceedings of ETHICS\(\bullet \) 2014 (2014 IEEE symposium on ethics in engineering, science, and technology), Chicago, IL, pp 22–29. IEEE Catalog Number: CFP14ETI-PODGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cushman F, Young L, Hauser M (2006) The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment testing three principles of harm. Psychol Sci 17(12):1082–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebbinghaus HD, Flum J, Thomas W (1994) Mathematical logic, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Francez N, Dyckhoff R (2010) Proof-theoretic semantics for a natural language fragment. Linguist Philos 33:447–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gentzen G (1935) Investigations into Logical Deduction. In: Szabo ME (ed) The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland, Amsterday, The Netherlands, pp 68–131, This is an English version of the well-known 1935 German versionGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Govindarajulu NS, Bringsjord S (2017) On automating the doctrine of double effect. In: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2017), Melbourne, Australia, preprint available at this https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08922
  12. 12.
    Hauser M, Cushman F, Young L, Kang-Xing Jin R, Mikhail J (2007) A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind Lang 22(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huxtable R (2004) Get out of jail free? the doctrine of double effect in english law. Palliat Med 18(1):62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kamm FM (2007) Intricate ethics: rights, responsibilities. Oxford University Press, New York, New York and Permissible HarmCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malle BF, Scheutz M, Arnold T, Voiklis J, Cusimano C (2015) Sacrifice one for the good of many?: people apply different moral norms to human and robot agents. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, ACM, Portland, USA, pp 117–124Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McNamara P (2014) Deontic logic. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, winter, 2014th edn. Stanford University, Metaphysics Research LabGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mueller E (2006) Commonsense reasoning: an event calculus based approach. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, This is the first edition of the book. The second edition was published in 2014Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pereira LM, Saptawijaya A (2016) Counterfactuals, logic programming and agent morality. In: Rahman S, Redmond J (eds) Logic. Springer, Argumentation and Reasoning, pp 85–99Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pollock J (1976) Subjunctive Reasoning. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland & Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1991) Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Fikes R, Sandewall E (eds) Proceedings of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R-91), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp 473–484Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sachdeva S, Iliev R, Ekhtiari H, Dehghani M (2015) The role of self-sacrifice in moral dilemmas. PloS one 10(6):e0127,409CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naveen Sundar Govindarajulu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Selmer Bringsjord
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rikhiya Ghosh
    • 2
  • Matthew Peveler
    • 2
  1. 1.RAIR LabDepartment of Cognitive Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA
  2. 2.RAIR LabDepartment of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations