{"title":"Ethica ex machina: issues in roboethics.","authors":"Shigeru Mushiaki","doi":"10.3917/jib.243.0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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. Roboticists, especially Japanese roboticists emphasize that robotics is \"anthropology.\" It is true that through the construction of humanoid robots we can better understand human beings (so-called \"constructive approach\"). But at the same time, we must not forget that robotic technology, like any other technology, changes our way of living and being--deeply: it can bring about our ontological transformation. In this sense, the governance of robotic technology is \"governed governance.\" The interdisciplinary research area of technology assessment studies (TAS) will gain much importance. And we should always be ready to rethink the direction of the research and development of robotic technology, bearing the desirable future of human society in mind.</p>","PeriodicalId":81629,"journal":{"name":"Journal international de bioethique = International journal of bioethics","volume":"24 4","pages":"17-26, 176-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal international de bioethique = International journal of bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3917/jib.243.0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
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. Roboticists, especially Japanese roboticists emphasize that robotics is "anthropology." It is true that through the construction of humanoid robots we can better understand human beings (so-called "constructive approach"). But at the same time, we must not forget that robotic technology, like any other technology, changes our way of living and being--deeply: it can bring about our ontological transformation. In this sense, the governance of robotic technology is "governed governance." The interdisciplinary research area of technology assessment studies (TAS) will gain much importance. And we should always be ready to rethink the direction of the research and development of robotic technology, bearing the desirable future of human society in mind.
“机器人伦理学”是“人类的伦理学”还是“机器人的伦理学”?根据机器人伦理路线图(Gianmarco Veruggio),它是机器人设计者、制造商和用户的人类伦理。如果机器人伦理深深植根于社会,人工伦理(机器人伦理)可能会在某一天被提上日程。在圣雷莫举行的第一届机器人伦理国际研讨会上,Ronald C. Arkin发表了题为“炸弹、结合和束缚:人机交互和相关伦理问题”(2004)的演讲。“束缚”是机器人被奴役和可能反叛的问题。“炸弹”是机器人军事用途的问题。“纽带”是指人类与机器人之间的情感依恋。我对比了两种对“结合”问题的极端态度,并提出了一个中间立场。“拟人化”有两个意思。首先,它的意思是“人形”。其次,它的意思是“将人类的特征或情感归因于非人类(神、动物或物体)”。(化身,同情)。有人说,日本人(或东亚人)持有“万物有灵论”,这使得他们很容易把机器人当作有生命的生物来对待(将机器人拟人化);因此被称为“日本机器人王国”。科西玛·瓦格纳批评这种夸张和过度简化是“虚构的传统”。我用神经科学的发现来支持她的观点,并认为这种“万物有灵论”既不是神道教的,也不是佛教的,而是一种普遍趋势。机器人专家,尤其是日本的机器人专家强调机器人是“人类学”。的确,通过构建类人机器人,我们可以更好地理解人类(所谓的“建设性方法”)。但与此同时,我们不能忘记,机器人技术,像任何其他技术一样,改变了我们的生活方式和存在方式——深刻地:它可以带来我们的本体论转变。从这个意义上说,机器人技术的治理是“被治理的治理”。技术评价研究(TAS)这一跨学科研究领域将日益受到重视。我们应该时刻准备好重新思考机器人技术的研究和发展方向,牢记人类社会的美好未来。