ethica ex Machina: issues in Roboethics

Abstract

is “roboethics” the “ethics of humans” or the “ethics of robots”? according to
the roboethics roadmap (Gianmarco Veruggio), it is the human ethics of robot
designers, manufacturers, and users. and ifroboethics roots deeply in society,
artificial ethics (ethics of robots) might be put on the agenda some day.
at the 1st international Symposium on roboethics in San remo, ronald c. arkin
gave the presentation “bombs, bonding, and bondage: human-robot
interaction and related Ethical issues” (2004). “bondage” is the issue of
enslavement and possible rebellion of robots. “bombs” is the issue of military use
of robots. and “bonding” is the issue of affective, emotional attachment of
humans to robots. i contrast two extreme attitudes towards the issue of
“bonding” and propose a middle ground.
“anthropomorphism” has two meanings. First, it means “human-shaped-ness.”
Second, it means “attribution of human characteristics or feelings to a nonhuman being (god, animal, or object)” (personification, empathy). Some say that
Japanese (or East asians) hold “animism,” which makes it easy for them to treat
robots like animated beings (to anthropomorphize robots); hence “robot
kingdom Japan.” cosima Wagner criticizes such exaggeration and
oversimplification as “invented tradition”. i reinforce her argument with
neuroscientific findings and argue that such “animism” is neither Shintoistic nor
buddhistic, but a universal tendency.