Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Maschinenethik und Philosophie

Handbuch Maschinenethik

Part of the book series: Springer Reference Geisteswissenschaften ((SPREFGEIST))

Zusammenfassung

Die Maschinenethik ist ein Forschungsgebiet an der Schnittstelle von Philosophie und Informatik. Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich zum einen mit den philosophischen Grundbegriffen und Voraussetzungen der Maschinenethik. Diese sind von besonderer Bedeutung, da sie Fragen aufwerfen, die die Möglichkeit der Maschinenethik teilweise grundsätzlich in Zweifel ziehen. Zum zweiten werden die verschiedenen Rollen der Philosophie auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen innerhalb der Maschinenethik thematisiert und die methodologische Umsetzung dieses interdisziplinären Forschungsprogramms dargelegt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Allen, Colin, et al. 2011. Why machine ethics? In Machine ethics, Hrsg. Michael Anderson und Susan Leigh Anderson, 51–61. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aristoteles. 2004. Topik, übers. u. komm.: Tim Wagner und Christoph Rapp. Ditzingen: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, Ronald. 2009. Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Asimov, Isaac. 2011. Alle Robotergeschichten, versch. Übersetzer, 3. Aufl. Köln: Bastei Lübbe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, William, und Adele Abrahamsen. 2001. Connectionism and the mind, 2. Aufl. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendel, Oliver. 2017. LADYBIRD: The animal-friendly robot vacuum cleaner. In The 2017 AAAI spring symposium series. Palo Alto: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermudez, José Luis. 2005. Philosophy of psychology: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Ned. 1995. On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18:227–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratman, Michael E. 1987. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breazeal, Cynthia, und Brian Scassellati. 2002. Robots that imitate humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:481–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brentano, Franz. 1874. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, Rodney. 1999. Cambrian intelligence: The early history of the new AI. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, David J. 1995. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 2:200–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, Paul, und Patricia Smith Churchland. 1990. Could a machine think? Scientific American 262:32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, Roger. 2011. Asimov’s laws of robotics: Implications for information technology. In Machine ethics, Hrsg. Michael Anderson und Susan L. Anderson, 254–284. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cloos, Christopher. 2005. The Utilibot project: An autonomous mobile robot based on utilitarianism. In American Association for Artificial Intelligence. http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/2005/FS-05-06/FS05-06-006.pdf. Zugegriffen am 14.12.2017.

  • Crane, Tim. 2016. The mechanical mind: A philosophical introduction to minds, machines and mental representation, 3. Aufl. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, Jonathan. 2004. Ethics without principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Donald. 1980. Essays on actions and events. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel C. 1987. The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press..

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel C. 1988. Quining qualia. In Consciousness in contemporary science, Hrsg. Anthony J. Marcel und E. Bisiach, 43–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, Fred. 1995. Explaining behavior. Reasons in a world of causes, 4th printing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshleman, Andrew. 2016. Moral responsibility. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Hrsg. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/moral-responsibility/. Zugegriffen am 14.12.2017.

  • Floridi, Luciano, und J. Sanders. 2004. On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines 14:349–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, Terrence, et al. 2002. A survey of socially interactive robots: Concepts, design, and applications. Technical report CMU-RI-TR-02-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankena, William K. 1966. The concept of morality. The Journal of Philosophy 63:688–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frege, Gottlob. 1879. Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle a. S.: Verlag Louis Nebert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, Gottlob. 1893/1903. Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Bd. I und II. Jena: Verlag Herrmann Pohle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froese, Tom, und Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2010. Modelling social interaction as perceptual crossing: An investigation into the dynamics of the interaction process. Connection Science 22:43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harnad, Steven. 1989. Minds, machines and Searle. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 1:5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harnad, Steven. 2002. Minds, machines, and searle: What’s right and wrong about the Chinese room argument. In Views into the Chinese room: New essays on Searle and artificial intelligence, Hrsg. John Preston und Mark Bishop, 294–307. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugeland, John. 1985. Artificial intelligence: The very idea. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugeland, John. 2002. Syntax, semantics, physics. In Views into the Chinese room: New essays on Searle and artificial intelligence, Hrsg. John Preston und Mark Bishop, 379–392. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iida, F., et al. 2004. Embodied artificial intelligence. International seminar, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, July 7–11, 2003, revised selected papers. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Frank. 1982. Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly 32:127–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Frank. 1986. What Mary didn’t know. Journal of Philosophy 83:291–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 2007. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten mit einem Kommentar, Hrsg. Christoph Horn, Corinna Mieth und Nico Scarano. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, Geert. 2007. Willensfreiheit. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, David. 1982. Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, Warren, und Walter Pitts. 1943. A logical calculus of ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 5:115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, Peter, et al. 1998. Introduction to connectionist modeling of cognitive processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, Marvin. 2006. The Emotion Machine. New York: Simon und Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misselhorn, Catrin. 2013. Robots as moral agents? In Roboethics, proceedings of the annual conference on ethics of the German Association for Social Science Research on Japan, Hrsg. Frank Roevekamp, 30–42. München: Iudicum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misselhorn, Catrin. 2015. Collective agency and cooperation in natural and artificial systems. Philosophical studies series, Bd. 122, 3–25. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Misselhorn, Catrin. 2018a. Moralische Maschinen in der Pflege? Grundlagen und eine Roadmap für ein moralisch lernfähiges Altenpflegesystem, erscheint in Roboter in der Gesellschaft: Technische Möglichkeiten und menschliche Verantwortung, Hrsg. Christiane Woopen und Marc Jannes. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misselhorn, Catrin. 2018b. Maschinenethik und „Artificial Morality“: Können und sollen Maschinen moralisch handeln? Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 68:29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misselhorn, Catrin. 2018c. Artificial morality. Concepts, issues and challenges. Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0229-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misselhorn, Catrin. 2018d. Maschinen mit Moral? Grundfragen der Maschinenethik. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moor, James A. 2006. The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21:18–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, Allen, Simon, Herbert A. 1976. Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM 19:113–126. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/∼cfs/472html/AISEARCH/PSS/PSSH1.html. Zugegriffen am 14.12.2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha. 1990. Love’s knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, Thomas M. 2011. Prospects for a Kantian machine. In Machine ethics, Hrsg. Michael Anderson und Susan Leigh Anderson, 464–475. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, Anand S., und Michael P. Georgeff. 1991. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, 473–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, Anand S., und Michael P. Georgeff. 1995. BDI-agents: From theory to practice. Proceedings of the first international conference on multiagent systems (ICMAS‘95), 312–319, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand, und Alfred North Whitehead. 1925/27. Principia Mathematica, Bds. I, II, III, 2. Aufl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheutz, Matthias. 2011. Architectural roles of affect and how to evaluate them in artificial agents. International Journal of Synthetic Emotions 2:48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John. 1980a. Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:417–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John. 1980b. Intrinsic intentionality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:450–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Peter. 1979. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, Robert M. 2007. Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24:62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonkens, Ryan. 2009. A challenge for machine ethics. Minds and Machines 19:421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turing, Alan. 1936/37. On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 42:230–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turing, Alan. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 49:433–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, Wendell, und Colin Allen. 2009. Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Robert A., und Lucia Foglia. 2017. Embodied cognition. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Hrsg. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/embodied-cognition/. Zugegriffen am 14.12.2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Wissenschaftstheorie und Technikphilosophie, Institut für Philosophie der Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Deutschland

    Catrin Misselhorn

Authors
  1. Catrin Misselhorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catrin Misselhorn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Hochschule für Wirtschaft FHNW Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Windisch, Switzerland

    Oliver Bendel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Misselhorn, C. (2018). Maschinenethik und Philosophie. In: Bendel, O. (eds) Handbuch Maschinenethik. Springer Reference Geisteswissenschaften. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17484-2_3-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17484-2_3-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-17484-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-17484-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Maschinenethik und Philosophie
    Published:
    30 May 2020

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17484-2_3-2

  2. Original

    Maschinenethik und Philosophie
    Published:
    06 April 2018

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17484-2_3-1

Search

Navigation