The ethics of bioinspired animal-robot interaction: A relational meta-ethical approach

Marco Tamborini
{"title":"The ethics of bioinspired animal-robot interaction: A relational meta-ethical approach","authors":"Marco Tamborini","doi":"10.1016/j.jrt.2025.100116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this article, I focus on a specific aspect of biorobotics: biohybrid interaction between bioinspired robots and animals. My goal is to analyze the ethical and epistemic implications of this practice, starting with a central question<em>:</em> Is it ethically permissible to have a bioinspired robot that mimics and reproduces the behaviors and/or morphology of an animal interact with a particular population, even if the animals do not know that the object they are interacting with is a robot and not a conspecific? My answer to the ethical question is that the interaction between animals and bioinspired robots is ethically acceptable if the animal actively participates in the language game (sense Coeckelbergh) established with the robot. I proceed as follows: First, I define the field of biorobotics and describe its four macro-categories. Second, I present concrete examples of interactive biorobotics, showing two emblematic cases in which the relationship between bioinspired robots and animals plays a central role. Third, I address one key issue—among many—in applied ethics regarding my ethical question. Fourth, I explore the ethical question on a metaethical level, making use of the theories of David Gunkel and Mark Coeckelbergh, as well as the linguistic approach and ethics of the late Ludwig Wittgenstein. Last, I argue that from a meta-ethical approach the original ethical question turns out to be misplaced. The ethical boundary lies not in the distinction between a real or fake relationship between the robot and the organism, but in the degree of mutual participation and understanding between the entities involved.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73937,"journal":{"name":"Journal of responsible technology","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 100116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of responsible technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666659625000125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, I focus on a specific aspect of biorobotics: biohybrid interaction between bioinspired robots and animals. My goal is to analyze the ethical and epistemic implications of this practice, starting with a central question: Is it ethically permissible to have a bioinspired robot that mimics and reproduces the behaviors and/or morphology of an animal interact with a particular population, even if the animals do not know that the object they are interacting with is a robot and not a conspecific? My answer to the ethical question is that the interaction between animals and bioinspired robots is ethically acceptable if the animal actively participates in the language game (sense Coeckelbergh) established with the robot. I proceed as follows: First, I define the field of biorobotics and describe its four macro-categories. Second, I present concrete examples of interactive biorobotics, showing two emblematic cases in which the relationship between bioinspired robots and animals plays a central role. Third, I address one key issue—among many—in applied ethics regarding my ethical question. Fourth, I explore the ethical question on a metaethical level, making use of the theories of David Gunkel and Mark Coeckelbergh, as well as the linguistic approach and ethics of the late Ludwig Wittgenstein. Last, I argue that from a meta-ethical approach the original ethical question turns out to be misplaced. The ethical boundary lies not in the distinction between a real or fake relationship between the robot and the organism, but in the degree of mutual participation and understanding between the entities involved.
在本文中,我将重点讨论生物机器人技术的一个具体方面:生物启发机器人与动物之间的生物混合互动。我的目标是从一个核心问题入手,分析这种做法的伦理和认识论意义:让模仿和复制动物行为和/或形态的生物启发机器人与特定种群互动,即使动物不知道与之互动的对象是机器人而非同种动物,这在伦理上是否允许?我对这个伦理问题的回答是,如果动物积极参与与机器人建立的语言游戏(意义上的 Coeckelbergh),那么动物与生物启发机器人之间的互动在伦理上是可以接受的。我的论述如下:首先,我定义了生物机器人领域,并描述了其四个宏观类别。其次,我将介绍互动式生物机器人技术的具体实例,展示生物启发机器人与动物之间的关系在其中发挥核心作用的两个典型案例。第三,我讨论了应用伦理学中有关我的伦理问题的诸多关键问题之一。第四,我利用大卫-冈克尔(David Gunkel)和马克-科克尔伯格(Mark Coeckelbergh)的理论,以及已故路德维希-维特根斯坦(Ludwig Wittgenstein)的语言学方法和伦理学,从元伦理学的层面探讨伦理问题。最后,我认为,从元伦理学的角度来看,最初的伦理问题是错位的。伦理界限不在于机器人与生物体之间是真关系还是假关系,而在于相关实体之间相互参与和理解的程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of responsible technology
Journal of responsible technology Information Systems, Artificial Intelligence, Human-Computer Interaction
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
168 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信