), What can we achieve (individual and societal capabilities) and How can we interact with each other and the world? (societal cohesion). The attempt to answer these questions and moreover the general moral question What should we do? has been part of ethical investigations since Socrates’ philosophy
researched and published a book, called Robot Rights , which analyzes, investigates, and explicates this phenomenon (Gunkel 2018). Instead of attempting to replay the rather detailed argument that is developed in the published text – which would be difficult to accomplish in the course of a short essay
The progress towards a society in which robots are our daily attendants seems to be inevitable. Sharing our workplaces, our homes and public squares with robots calls for an exploration of how we want and need to organize our cohabitation with these increasingly autonomous machines. Not only the question of how robots should treat humans or the surrounding world, but also the questions of how humans should treat robots, and how robots should treat each other, may and should be asked. Considering the Kantian idea that possessing dignity is based on autonomy and the fact that robots are becoming increasingly autonomous and rational, one of these questions might be whether robots can have dignity. Two issues must therefore be addressed before answering the question: 1. What are robots and why should we think about “robot dignity” at all? and 2. What is dignity? The answer to the first question is necessary to understand the object of investigation and will be considered briefly. The second more complex question requires a short glimpse on the existing theories and the history of the term before a proposal will be given on how to understand dignity. Finally, it will be explained why robots cannot be rightly seen as possessors of dignity.
The impending introduction of self-driving cars poses a new stage of complexity not only in technical requirements but in the ethical challenges it evokes. The question of which ethical principles to use for the programming of crash algorithms, especially in response to so-called dilemma situations, is one of the most controversial moral issues discussed. This paper critically investigates the rationale behind rule utilitarianism as to whether and how it might be adequate to guide ethical behaviour of autonomous cars in driving dilemmas. Three core aspects related to the rule utilitarian concept are discussed with regards to their relevance for the given context: the universalization principle, the ambivalence of compliance issues, and the demandingness objection. It is concluded that a rule utilitarian approach might be useful for solving driverless car dilemmas only to a limited extent. In particular, it cannot provide the exclusive ethical criterion when evaluated from a practical point of view. However, it might still be of conceptual value in the context of a pluralist solution.
Gamification, smarte Technologien und eine persistente digitale Erreichbarkeit führen dazu, dass immer mehr Lebensbereiche mit Aspekten von Spielen angereichert werden. Doch was zeichnet das Spiel eigentlich aus? Und ist es überhaupt möglich und ethisch legitim, das ganze Leben in ein Spiel zu verwandeln?
Vor dem Hintergrund einer humanistischen Anthropologie, die dem Menschen zutraut und zugleich zumutet, selbst Autor*in des eigenen Lebens zu sein, wird Gamification als durchaus problematische Manipulationsstrategie beschrieben, die kaum etwas mit dem Spiel zu tun hat und deren Einsatz nur unter bestimmten Bedingungen ethisch legitim ist. Denn, verabschieden wir uns nicht ein Stück weit von unserem Menschsein, wenn wir uns zurücklehnen und unser Leben in die Hände gamifizierter Anwendungen und Systeme legen, die uns durch ihre Spielmechanismen und Algorithmen gewissermaßen darauf programmieren, erwünschte Verhaltensweisen an den Tag zu legen? Schließlich sollten wir als autonome Subjekte in der Lage sein, selbst herauszufinden und umzusetzen, was wir für richtig und erstrebenswert halten.
, growing interest in social cognition has led researchers to investigate new questions related to attribution of thoughts to others. Social cognition refers to the mental operations that underlie social interactions, including perceiving, interpreting and generating responses to intentions, disposition and
This activity is closely connected to an upsurge in state funding of research programs that investigate opportunities for the everyday use of robots. The EU launched the robotics promotion program “SPARC” with a volume of over €700mio in 2014. The “National Robotics Initiative” in the US will
of other road users and a great deal of other information with more accuracy than car-mounted sensors.
Important questions remain, however. One which there is not space to investigate in detail here is whether self-driving cars should in fact be making such distinctions at all. For example, the
worth investigating whether a different version of the argument, also proposed by Chalmers, namely, the so-called fading -qualia argument, is undermined by RV as well. The fading-qualia argument uses the same reasoning as the dancing-qualia version, but instead of the conclusion that a neuronal
possibility of moral decision-making by intelligent machines deal with old wine in new bottles: Trying to identify moral values has been part of most ethical considerations since the very beginning of philosophical investigations.
In her chapter Is Utilitarianism Entirely Useless for Self-Driving Car