机器人在道德和法律体系中的地位

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Katarzyna Ginszt
{"title":"机器人在道德和法律体系中的地位","authors":"Katarzyna Ginszt","doi":"10.14746/eip.2019.2.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"David J. Gunkel in his latest book Robot Rights presents the opportunities and challenges of integrating robots into moral and legal systems. The research question asked by the author is “Can and should robots have rights”? Following the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought”, Gunkel creates four statements that either opt for or against incorporating robots into legal discourse. The four modalities group contrasting opinions developed by different scholars on the subject of the eponymous robot rights. The author provides readers with yet another alternative approach to the question of legal recognition of robots which is based on Levinasian philosophy.","PeriodicalId":36100,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Progress","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Status of Robots in Moral and Legal Systems\",\"authors\":\"Katarzyna Ginszt\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/eip.2019.2.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"David J. Gunkel in his latest book Robot Rights presents the opportunities and challenges of integrating robots into moral and legal systems. The research question asked by the author is “Can and should robots have rights”? Following the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought”, Gunkel creates four statements that either opt for or against incorporating robots into legal discourse. The four modalities group contrasting opinions developed by different scholars on the subject of the eponymous robot rights. The author provides readers with yet another alternative approach to the question of legal recognition of robots which is based on Levinasian philosophy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics in Progress\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics in Progress\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2019.2.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics in Progress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2019.2.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

David J. Gunkel在他的新书《机器人权利》中提出了将机器人融入道德和法律体系的机遇和挑战。作者提出的研究问题是“机器人可以和应该有权利”?根据休谟对“是”和“应该”的区分,冈克尔提出了四种观点,要么支持,要么反对将机器人纳入法律话语。这四种模式集合了不同学者对同名机器人权利的不同看法。作者为读者提供了另一种基于列文哲学的机器人法律承认问题的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Status of Robots in Moral and Legal Systems
David J. Gunkel in his latest book Robot Rights presents the opportunities and challenges of integrating robots into moral and legal systems. The research question asked by the author is “Can and should robots have rights”? Following the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought”, Gunkel creates four statements that either opt for or against incorporating robots into legal discourse. The four modalities group contrasting opinions developed by different scholars on the subject of the eponymous robot rights. The author provides readers with yet another alternative approach to the question of legal recognition of robots which is based on Levinasian philosophy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics in Progress
Ethics in Progress Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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