Machines as moral patients we shouldn't care about (yet): The interests and welfare of current machines

被引:0
作者
Basl J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Philosophy and Religion, Northeastern University, 371 Holmes Hall, Boston, MA 02115
关键词
AI ethics; Interests; Machine; Moral considerability; Moral status;
D O I
10.1007/s13347-013-0122-y
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
In order to determine whether current (or future)machines have a welfare that we as agents ought to take into account in our moral deliberations, we must determine which capacities give rise to interests and whether current machines have those capacities. After developing an account of moral patiency, I argue that current machines should be treated as mere machines. That is, current machines should be treated as if they lack those capacities that would give rise to psychological interests. Therefore, they are moral patients only if they have non-psychological interests. I then provide an account of what I call teleo interests that constitute the most plausible type of non-psychological interest that a being might have. I then argue that even if current machines have teleo interests, they are such that agents need not concern themselves with these interests. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, current machines are not moral patients.
引用
收藏
页码:79 / 96
页数:17
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] John B., Sandler R., The good of non-sentient entities: Organisms, artifacts, and synthetic biology, Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, (2013)
  • [2] John B., Sandler R., Three puzzles regarding the moral status of synthetic organisms, Artificial Life": Synthetic Biology and the Bounds of Nature, (2013)
  • [3] Behrends J., A new argument for the multiplicity of the good-for relation, Journal of Value Inquiry, 45, 2, pp. 121-133, (2011)
  • [4] Bovenkerk B., Brom F.W.A., Van Den Bergh B.J., Brave new birds: The use of animal integrity in animal ethics, The Hastings Center Report, 32, 1, pp. 16-24, (2002)
  • [5] Harley C., Against the moral considerability of ecosystems, Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, (2002)
  • [6] Feinberg J., The rights of animals and future generations, Columbia Law Review, 63, (1963)
  • [7] Feldman F., Pleasure and the Good Life: Concerning the Nature, Varieties and Plausibility of Hedonism, (2004)
  • [8] Floridi L., On the intrinsic value of information objects and the infosphere, Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 4, pp. 287-304, (2002)
  • [9] Forber P., On the explanatory roles of natural selection, Biology and Philosophy, 20, 2-3, pp. 329-342, (2005)
  • [10] Ortiz G., Elizabeth S., Beyond welfare: Animal integrity, animal dignity, and genetic engineering, Ethics & the Environment, 9, 1, pp. 94-120, (2004)