Can we program or train robots to be good?

被引:0
|
作者
Amanda Sharkey
机构
[1] University of Sheffield,Department of Computer Science
来源
Ethics and Information Technology | 2020年 / 22卷
关键词
Ethics; Moral competence; Robot; Decision-making; Minimally ethical;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
As robots are deployed in a widening range of situations, it is necessary to develop a clearer position about whether or not they can be trusted to make good moral decisions. In this paper, we take a realistic look at recent attempts to program and to train robots to develop some form of moral competence. Examples of implemented robot behaviours that have been described as 'ethical', or 'minimally ethical' are considered, although they are found to operate only in quite constrained and limited application domains. There is a general recognition that current robots cannot be described as full moral agents, but it is less clear whether will always be the case. Concerns are raised about the insufficiently justified use of terms such as 'moral' and 'ethical' to describe the behaviours of robots that are often more related to safety considerations than to moral ones. Given the current state of the art, two possible responses are identified. The first involves continued efforts to develop robots that are capable of ethical behaviour. The second is to argue against, and to attempt to avoid, placing robots in situations that demand moral competence and an understanding of the surrounding social situation. There is something to be gained from both responses, but it is argued here that the second is the more responsible choice.
引用
收藏
页码:283 / 295
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Affordance Based Approach to Automatic Program Generation for Industrial Robots in Manufacturing
    Heimann, Oliver
    Krueger, Joerg
    7TH CIRP CONFERENCE ON ASSEMBLY TECHNOLOGIES AND SYSTEMS (CATS 2018), 2018, 76 : 133 - 137
  • [42] Bayesian brain: Can we model emotion?
    Bottemanne, H.
    ENCEPHALE-REVUE DE PSYCHIATRIE CLINIQUE BIOLOGIQUE ET THERAPEUTIQUE, 2021, 47 (01): : 58 - 63
  • [43] How can we help children save? Tell them they can (if they want to)
    Atance, Cristina M.
    Metcalf, Jennifer L.
    Thiessen, Andrea J.
    COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT, 2017, 43 : 67 - 79
  • [44] A systematic review of collaborative robots for nurses: where are we now, and where is the evidence?
    Babalola, Grace Titilayo
    Gaston, Jenna-Marie
    Trombetta, Joseph
    Jesso, Stephanie Tulk
    FRONTIERS IN ROBOTICS AND AI, 2024, 11
  • [45] When Should We Use Care Robots? The Nature-of-Activities Approach
    de Sio, Filippo Santoni
    van Wynsberghe, Aimee
    SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2016, 22 (06) : 1745 - 1760
  • [46] "We Can Do Anything but We Can't Do Everything": Exploring the Perceived Impact of International Pediatric Programs on US PICUs
    Berkman, Emily R.
    Clark, Jonna D.
    Diekema, Douglas S.
    Lewis-Newby, Mithya
    FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2019, 7
  • [47] Why Ought We Be Good? A Hildebrandian Challenge to Thomistic Normativity Theory
    Taccolini, Joshua
    INTERNATIONAL PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY, 2023, 63 (01) : 71 - 89
  • [48] Ethics and History: Can Critical Lawyers Talk of Good and Evil?
    Norrie, Alan
    CRIMINAL LAW AND PHILOSOPHY, 2015, 9 (03) : 443 - 456
  • [49] What we bet on is not only tangible money, but also good mood
    Guo, Hui-Fang
    Tao, Rui
    Zhao, Ning
    Chen, Hai-Ping
    Zheng, Rui
    Li, Shu
    COGNITION & EMOTION, 2022, 36 (07) : 1404 - 1419
  • [50] Can We Be Funny? The Social Responsibility of Political Humor
    Peifer, Jason T.
    JOURNAL OF MASS MEDIA ETHICS, 2012, 27 (04): : 263 - 276