Nonconscious Cognitive Suffering: Considering Suffering Risks of Embodied Artificial Intelligence

Should Violence Against Robots be Banned?

This paper addresses the following question: “Should violence against robots be banned?” Such a question is usually associated with a query concerning the moral status of robots. If an entity has moral status, then concomitant responsibilities toward it arise. Despite the possibility of a positive answer to the title question on the grounds of the moral status of robots, legal changes are unlikely to occur in the short term. However, if the matter regards public violence rather than mere violence, the issue of the moral status of robots may be avoided, and legal changes could be made in the short term. Prohibition of public violence against robots focuses on public morality rather than on the moral status of robots. The wrongness of such acts is not connected with the intrinsic characteristics of robots but with their performance in public. This form of prohibition would be coherent with the existing legal system, which eliminates certain behaviors in public places through prohibitions against acts such as swearing, going naked, and drinking alcohol.

The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review

Ethicists, policy-makers, and the general public have questioned whether artificial entities such as robots warrant rights or other forms of moral consideration. There is little synthesis of the research on this topic so far. We identify 294 relevant research or discussion items in our literature review of this topic. There is widespread agreement among scholars that some artificial entities could warrant moral consideration in the future, if not also the present. The reasoning varies, such as concern for the effects on artificial entities and concern for the effects on human society. Beyond the conventional consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethicist ethical frameworks, some scholars encourage "information ethics" and "social-relational" approaches, though there are opportunities for more in-depth ethical research on the nuances of moral consideration of artificial entities. There is limited relevant empirical data collection, primarily in a few psychological studies on current moral and social attitudes of humans towards robots and other artificial entities. This suggests an important gap for psychological, sociological, economic, and organizational research on how artificial entities will be integrated into society and the factors that will determine how the interests of artificial entities are considered.

Whether to Save a Robot or a Human: On the Ethical and Legal Limits of Protections for Robots

Proponents of welcoming robots into the moral circle have presented various approaches to moral patiency under which determining the moral status of robots seems possible. However, even if we recognize robots as having moral standing, how should we situate them in the hierarchy of values? In particular, who should be sacrificed in a moral dilemma-a human or a robot? This paper answers this question with reference to the most popular approaches to moral patiency. However, the conclusions of a survey on moral patiency do not consider another important factor, namely the law. For now, the hierarchy of values is set by law, and we must take that law into consideration when making decisions. I demonstrate that current legal systems prioritize human beings and even force the active protection of humans. Recent studies have suggested that people would hesitate to sacrifice robots in order to save humans, yet doing so could be a crime. This hesitancy is associated with the anthropomorphization of robots, which are becoming more human-like. Robots' increasing similarity to humans could therefore lead to the endangerment of humans and the criminal responsibility of others. I propose two recommendations in terms of robot design to ensure the supremacy of human life over that of humanoid robots.