Advertisement

Non-monotonic Resolution of Conflicts for Ethical Reasoning

  • Jean-Gabriel Ganascia
Part of the Cognitive Technologies book series (COGTECH)

Abstract

This chapter attempts to specify some of the requirements of ethical robotic systems. It begins with a short story by John McCarthy entitled, “The Robot and the Baby,” that shows how difficult it is for a rational robot to be ethical. It then characterizes the different types of “ethical robots” to which this approach is relevant and the nature of ethical questions that are of concern. The second section distinguishes between the different aspects of ethical systems and attempts to focus on ethical reasoning. First, it shows that ethical reasoning is essentially non-monotonic and then that it has to consider the known consequences of actions, at least if we are interested in modeling the consequentialist ethics. The two last sections, i.e., the third and the fourth, present different possible implementations of ethical reasoners, one being based on ASP (answer set programming) and the second on the BDI (belief, desire, intention) framework for programming agents.

Keywords

Ethics Non-monotony Roboethics Robotic 

References

  1. 1.
    McCarthy, J.: The robot and the baby. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/robotandbaby/ (2001)
  2. 2.
    Asimov, I.: I, Robot. Gnome Press, New York (1950)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wallach, W., Allen, C.: Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford University Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Čapek, K.: R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots). Oxford University Press, London (1947)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganascia, J.G.: Ethics of cockfight, botfight and other fights. In: Proceedings of Computer Ethics and Philosophical Enquiry Conference (CEPE 2011), Milwaukee, WI, June. INSEIT (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guizzo, E.: The man who made a copy of himself. IEEE Spectr. 47(4), 44–56 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mori, M.: Bukimi no tani [the uncanny valley]. Energy 7, 33–35 (1970)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harman, G.: Explaining Value and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Clarendon Press, Oxford (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    vonWright, G.H.: Deontic logics. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gensler, H.: Formal Ethics. Routledge, London (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Powers, T.: Deontological machine ethics. Technical report, American Association of Artificial Intelligence Fall Symposium 2005, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bringsjord, S., Arkoudas, K., Bello, P.: Toward a general logicist methodology for engineering ethically correct robots. Technical report, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Troy (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Frassen, B.: Values and the heart’s command. J. Philos. 70, 5–19 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horty, J.: Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic. J. Philos. Log. 23, 35–65 (1994)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meyer, J.-J.Ch., Dignum, F.P.M., Wieringa, R.: The paradoxes of deontic logic revisited: a computer science perspective. Technical report, UU-CS-1994-38, Utrecht University, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chellas, B.: Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hansen, J.: The paradoxes of deontic logic. Theoria 72, 221–232 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chisholm, R.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24, 33–36 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Forrester, J.W.: Gentle murder, or the adverbial samaritan. J. Philos. 81, 193–196 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goble, L.: A logic for deontic dilemmas. J. Appl. Log. 3(3–4), 461–483 (2005)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hansen, J.: Deontic logics for prioritized imperatives. Artif. Intell. Law 14, 1–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brewka, G.: Reasoning about priorities in default logic. In: Hayes-Roth, B., Korf, R.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, vol. 2, pp. 940–945. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dabringer, G. (ed.): Ethical and Legal Aspects of Unmanned Systems Interviews. Ethica Themen, Institut für Religion und Frieden (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kant, I.: Critique of practical reason. In: Paperback, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kant, I.: Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. In: Paperback, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Constant, B.: Des réactions politiques. Éditions Flammarion, Paris (1988)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ganascia, J.G.: Modelling ethical rules of lying with answer set programming. Ethics Inf. Technol. 9(1), 39–47 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gelfond, M.: Answer sets. In: Handbook of Knowledge Representation, Chap. 7 Elsevier, San Diego (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: Bdi agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, ICMAS95, vol. 95, pp. 312–319 (Technical Note 56) (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Allen, J., Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lifschitz, V.: What is answer set programming? In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1594–1597. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Newell, A.: The knowledge level. Artif. Intell. J. 18, 87–127 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Russel, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence a Modern Approach. Series in Artificial Intelligence. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1995)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Riemsdijk, B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.C.: Goals in conflict: semantic foundations of goals. Int. J. Auton. Agent Multi-Agent Syst. 18(3), 471–500 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Lang, J., Liberatore, P., Marquis, P.: Expressive power and succinctness of propositional languages for preference representation. In: Proceedings of the 9th KR, pp. 203–212 (2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hindriks, K.V., Boer, F.S.D., Hoek, W.V.D., Meyer, J.J.C.: Agent programming with declarative goals. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VII. Agent Theories Architectures and Languages, ATAL ’00, pp. 228–243. Springer, London (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Boer, F., Hindriks, K., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.J.: A verification framework for agent programming with declarative goals. J. Appl. Log. 5(2), 277–302 (2007)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Horty, J.: Nonmonotonic foundations for deontic logic. In: Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 17–44. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London (1997)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ganascia, J.G.: An agent-based formalization for resolving ethical conflicts. In: Konieczny, S., Meyer, T. (eds.) Workshop on Belief Change, Non-monotonic Reasoning and Conflict Resolution, Montpellier, ECAI, pp. 34–40 (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tufiş, M., Ganascia, J.G.: Grafting norms onto the BDI agent model. In: A Construction Manual for Robot’s Ethical Systems: Requirements, Methods, Implementations. MIT Press, Cambridge (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bentham, J.: Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In: Bowring, J. (ed.) The Works of Jeremy Bentham. Simpkin, Marshall, London (1838–1843)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Informatique de Paris 6 (LIP6)Université Pierre et Marie CurieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations