Abstract
This contribution provides an indirect argument for the claim that empathy with robots matters from a moral point of view. After reviewing the empirical evidence for the claim that certain robots are able to evoke empathy in human observers the concept of empathy is explicated. It is shown that the fact that humans feel empathy with robots which resemble humans or animals imposes moral constraints on how robots should be treated, because robot abuse compromises the human capacity to feel empathy, which is an important source of moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral development. Therefore, we should consider carefully the areas in which robots that evoke empathy may be used and the areas where we should refrain from such a design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an overview of the debate see Danaher (2020).
- 2.
For reasons of simplicity, I will, nevertheless only speak of human-like robots.
- 3.
An exception is Darling (2016) who works with Pleo, a pet robot that looks like a little dinosaur.
- 4.
This is just one suggestion to understand the mechanism that underlies empathy. It can be easily adapted to other tracking-theories of mental content. My main argument is, however, independent of such an account, if one does not buy into any theory of this type.
- 5.
For a good overview see Debes (2017).
- 6.
The characteristics of the moral are outlined in more detail in Misselhorn 2018.
- 7.
For a more detailed account of the relation between the empathic and the moral point of view, see Misselhorn (2023)
References
Audi, R. (2016). Means, ends, and persons: The meaning and psychological dimensions of kant’s humanity formula. Oxford University Press.
Bartneck, C., & Hu, J. (2008). Exploring the abuse of robots. Interaction Studies, 9(3), 415–433.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D. (2012). The empathy-altruism hypothesis: Issues and implications. In J. Decety (Ed.), Empathy: From bench to bedside (pp. 41–54). MIT Press.
Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57(1), 1–29.
Blair, R. J. R (2005). Applying a cognitive neuroscience perspective to the disorder of psychopathy. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 865–891.
Cappuccio, M., Peeters, A., & McDonald, W. (2020). Sympathy for Dolores: Moral consideration for robots based on virtue and recognition. Philosophy & Technology, 33, 9–31.
Danaher, J. (2020). Robot betrayal: A guide to the ethics of robotic deception. Ethics and Information Technology, 22, 117–128.
Darling, K. (2016). Extending legal protection to social robots: The effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. In R. Calo, A. Froomkin, & I. Kerr (Eds.), Robot law (pp. 213–234). Edward Elgar.
Darwall, S. (1998). Empathy, sympathy, care. Philosophical Studies, 89, 261–282.
Debes, R. (2017). Empathy and mirror neurons. In H. Maibom (Ed.), Empathy and morality (pp. 54–63). Oxford University Press.
Denham, A. E. (2017): Empathy and moral motivation. In H. Maibom (ed.), Empathy and morality (pp. 227–241). Oxford University Press.
Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. MIT Press.
De Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: How, when and why? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 435–441.
De Waal, F., & Preston, S. (2017). Mammalian empathy: Behavioural manifestations and neural basis. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(8), 498–509.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1970). Ethology: The biology of behaviour. Holt.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 131–149.
Gallese, V. et al. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). The ABC research group: Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.
Goldman, A. (2009). Mirroring, mindreading, and simulation. In von J. Pineda (ed.), Mirror neuron systems. The role of mirroring processes in social cognition (pp. 311–331). New York.
Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, P. L., Meltzoff, A., & Decety, J. (2005). How do we perceive the pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in empathy. NeuroImage, 24(3), 771–779.
Kant, I. (1797/1991). The metaphysics of morals. Translated by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge University Press.
Kauppinen, A. (2014). Empathy, emotion regulation, and moral judgment. In H. Maibom (ed.), Empathy and morality. Oxford University Press.
Kauppinen, A. (2017): Empathy and moral judgment. In H. Maibom (ed.), Empathy and morality (pp. 215–226). Oxford University Press.
Lamm, C., & Majdandžiæ, J. (2015). The role of shared neural activations, mirror neurons, and morality in empathy–A critical comment. Neuroscience Research, 90, 15–24.
Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 195–217). Cambridge University Press.
Lorenz, K. (1981). The foundation of ethology. Springer.
Maibom, H. (ed.). (2014a). Empathy and morality. Oxford University Press.
Maibom, H. (2014b). Introduction: (Almost) Everything you ever wanted to know about empathy. In H. Maibom (Ed.), Empathy and Morality (pp. 1–40). Oxford University Press.
Mathur, M., & Reichling, D. (2016). Navigating a social world with robot partners: A quantitative cartography of the Uncanny Valley. Cognition, 146, 22–32.
Misselhorn, C. (2009). Empathy with inanimate objects and the Uncanny Valley. Minds and Machines, 19, 345–359.
Misselhorn, C. (2018): Grundfragen der Maschinenethik. Reclam.
Misselhorn, C (2023). Viewing others as ends in themselves: The empathic and the moral point of view. In T. Petraschka & C. Werner (eds.), Empathy’s role in understanding persons, literature, and art. Routledge.
Montag, C. et al. (2008). Theodor Lipps and the concept of empathy: 1851–1914. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(10), 1261.
Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani. Energy, 7(4), 33–35. Translated by K. F. MacDorman & N. Kageki (2012). The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics and Automation, 19(2), 98–100.
Mukamel, R. et al. (2010). Single-neuron responses in humans during execution and observation of actions. Current Biology, 20, 750–756.
Nickerson, R., et al. (2009). Empathy and knowledge projection. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 43–56). MIT Press.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press.
Riek L. et al. (2009). Empathizing with robots: Fellow feeling along the anthropomorphic spectrum. IEEE affective computing and intelligent interaction and workshops, pp. 1–6.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27(1), 169–192.
Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. et al. (2014). Investigations on empathy towards humans and robots using fMRI. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 201–212.
Schramme, T., & Edwards, S. (eds.). (2017a). Handbook of the philosophy of medicine. Springer.
Schramme, T. (2017b). Empathy and altruism. In H. Maibom (ed.), Empathy and morality (pp. 205–104). Oxford University Press.
Slater, M. et al. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 1(1), e39.
Slote, M. (2007). The ethics of care and empathy. Routledge.
Smith, A. (1853/1966). The theory of moral sentiments. August M. Kelley Publishers.
Spaulding, S. (2019). Cognitive empathy. In H. Maibom (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of empathy (pp. 13–21). Routledge.
Stueber, K. (2006). Rediscovering empathy: Agency, folk psychology, and the human sciences. MIT Press.
Suzuki, Y. et al. (2015). Measuring empathy for human and robot hand pain using electroencephalography. Scientific Reports, 2015(5), 15924.
Zaki, J., Wager, T. D., Singer, T., Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2016). The anatomy of suffering: Understanding the relationship between nociceptive and empathic pain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 20, 249–259.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Misselhorn, C. (2023). Is Empathy with Robots Morally Relevant?. In: Misselhorn, C., Poljanšek, T., Störzinger, T., Klein, M. (eds) Emotional Machines. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37641-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37641-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-37640-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-37641-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)