Moral zombies: why algorithms are not moral agents

被引:55
作者
Veliz, Carissa [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oxford, Hertford Coll, Fac Philosophy, Inst Eth AI, Oxford, England
基金
英国惠康基金;
关键词
Algorithms; Moral agency; Moral responsibility; Autonomous systems; Zombies; Accountability; Autonomy; Sentience; Consciousness; Reasons-responsiveness; RESPONSIBILITY; WILL;
D O I
10.1007/s00146-021-01189-x
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
In philosophy of mind, zombies are imaginary creatures that are exact physical duplicates of conscious subjects for whom there is no first-personal experience. Zombies are meant to show that physicalism-the theory that the universe is made up entirely out of physical components-is false. In this paper, I apply the zombie thought experiment to the realm of morality to assess whether moral agency is something independent from sentience. Algorithms, I argue, are a kind of functional moral zombie, such that thinking about the latter can help us better understand and regulate the former. I contend that the main reason why algorithms can be neither autonomous nor accountable is that they lack sentience. Moral zombies and algorithms are incoherent as moral agents because they lack the necessary moral understanding to be morally responsible. To understand what it means to inflict pain on someone, it is necessary to have experiential knowledge of pain. At most, for an algorithm that feels nothing, 'values' will be items on a list, possibly prioritised in a certain way according to a number that represents weightiness. But entities that do not feel cannot value, and beings that do not value cannot act for moral reasons.
引用
收藏
页码:487 / 497
页数:11
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1991, The embodied mind, revised edition: Cognitive science and human experience
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2012, The Machine Question
[3]  
Arpaly N, 2002, UNPRINCIPLED VIRTUE, DOI [10.1093/0195152042.001.0001, DOI 10.1093/0195152042.001.0001]
[4]   A Normative Approach to Artificial Moral Agency [J].
Behdadi, Dorna ;
Munthe, Christian .
MINDS AND MACHINES, 2020, 30 (02) :195-218
[5]   Robot Rights? Let's Talk about Human Welfare Instead [J].
Birhane, Abeba ;
van Dijk, Jelle .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD AAAI/ACM CONFERENCE ON AI, ETHICS, AND SOCIETY AIES 2020, 2020, :207-213
[6]   The Superintelligent Will: Motivation and Instrumental Rationality in Advanced Artificial Agents [J].
Bostrom, Nick .
MINDS AND MACHINES, 2012, 22 (02) :71-85
[7]   "Do Unto Others"? Distinct Psychopathy Facets Predict Reduced Perception and Tolerance of Pain [J].
Brislin, Sarah J. ;
Buchman-Schmitt, Jennifer M. ;
Joiner, Thomas E. ;
Patrick, Christopher J. .
PERSONALITY DISORDERS-THEORY RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2016, 7 (03) :240-246
[8]   Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons [J].
Bryson J.J. ;
Diamantis M.E. ;
Grant T.D. .
Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2017, 25 (3) :273-291
[9]   Motivations and Risks of Machine Ethics [J].
Cave, Stephen ;
Nyrup, Rune ;
Vold, Karina ;
Weller, Adrian .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, 2019, 107 (03) :562-574
[10]  
Christman J., 2015, STANFORD ENCY PHILOS, VSpring 2015