Robots Are People Too?
They say hard cases make bad law, so lets not talk about a toaster.
You have a robot, an android, similar in appearance to a human, close enough that you couldn't tell at a distance. This robot has intelligence at or slightly above that of a human, as well as sentience.
Is that robot a person? Would that robot be entitled to human rights? Should it be protected under the law as a person? Would it be okay (with full knowledge of the entomology of the word robot) to treat that sentient robot as a slave? As less than human?
And some theological questions:
Would it have a soul? Is it a creation of God? Is it one of God's children? Could it accept God and receive salvation?
And if the answer to the above is no, under what conditions could it be yes?
Vintage robot image via Shutterstock.
- Comment (214)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (29)
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Robots Are People Too?
A robot that passes the Turing Test would be a person, but not a human.
Is it God's creation? Not if created by a human. Not being God's creation, then: Child of God? No. Would it have a soul? No. Receive Salvation? No.
As a creation of man, it's rights and protections would be given by man. A status equal to or less than human would be decided by human laws. Same with slavery.
If the robot was a creation of God, then the answers flip.
Personally, I would be willing to treat a sentient robot as an equal.
Sep '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
Prove the robot is sentient. Self-aware, Intelligent and here's the key one CONSCIOUS. Prove all of these and you have to treat them like people.
The idea that a machine can ever achieve consciousness is dubious to me. At the end of the day, no matter how sophisticated, a computer is executing a set of instructions. You may give it the ability to alter it's own code, thus giving it the illusion of choice. But that ability is itself a set of instructions governed by some set of rules, be it some algorithm or even random number generation.
Sorry Data. But your going with commander Maddux...
Aug '10
Re: Robots Are People Too?
If the robot is able to argue these points on its own behalf, without having been programmed specifically for the purpose of arguing these points, then yes.
If not, then no.
Edited on February 25, 2013 at 8:37pmMar '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
Fred Cole: You have a robot, an android, similar in appearance to a human, close enough that you couldn't tell at a distance. This robot has intelligence at or slightly above that of a human and sentience.
Is that robot a person?
My gut instinct is that once we begin building robots with human level intelligence or higher the decision will no longer be up to us.
Mar '12
Re: Robots Are People Too?
I'll need to go back and rewatch the re-imagined version of Battlestar Galactica (from the pilot to "The Plan") before I attempt this one.
Jan '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
Why do you ask?
Jul '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
Robot =/= Human therefore it is soulless property and should be treated as such. Even if it dreams of electric sheep.
-E
Dec '12
Re: Robots Are People Too?
If the robot is sentient, it's a person, but not human, as SC notes. However, from this point, I part company with most of the commenters. We are creations of God, in His image (which amounts to far more than just looking like Him), and He gave us free will, a conscience, and the intelligence to do various things, including create sentient...persons. In His omnipotence, He knew we would, too, and gave no injunction against using our intelligence ("Don't eat the apple" was an injunction against looking ahead and getting answers we hadn't developed on our own).
Thus, the creation of a person by a creation of God is, in the end, also a creation of God. The indirect route doesn't reduce that. Such a creation has a soul (not imparted by us...), and it can receive salvation.
Eric Hines
Aug '10
Re: Robots Are People Too?
Roberto
... human level intelligence ...
Now I really feel sorry for those poor robots. ;-)
Apr '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
For those who think a Robot can receive salvation, may I ask, from what?
I don't really know how we can prove we have souls other than by extrapolating from our sentience. Ergo to have a sentience is to have a soul. But, we do not consider humans with very limited brain activity or capacity as not having a full soul. I am though weary of such debates.
Humans project their emotions on to object only to watch them bounce back to us to give us fulfillment Think how humans treat pets? These animals are mildly like us, and because of their proximity we ascribe to them near human levels of personality. I think a robot that could mimic humans very well (even objectively lacking free will) would be treated as human by most humans. The closer things remind us of ourselves the easier it will be to project on to them complex traits.
Nov '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
I'm been thinking a lot about robots and if they're people or not.
I'm curious where the line is and when a robot becomes a person and not just property.
And I asked because I was looking for perspectives from our diverse crowd.
Dec '12
Re: Robots Are People Too?
Really, Fred. What have you done to your toaster?
Nov '10
Re: Robots Are People Too?
A person is a person no matter how small...or tall, or mechanical, or having laser guns instead of hands.
As to whether they have souls...I'll get back to you when that becomes a more pressing matter. We are nowhere near there yet, so I'm not going to worry about it.
Could you love a robot, if it could love you back?
(Only if you were a robosexual.)
Jul '10
Re: Robots Are People Too?
The Puppeteers in Larry Niven's Known Space series have outlawed AI on the grounds that they did not want to invent their successor species. If only the folks on Battlestar Galactica's Caprica had had such sense, that whole, awful remake series could have been avoided.
Mar '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
Why the insistence that the robot have a human form? If your toaster were self-aware, would it be a person?
And what would the purpose be for designing a self-aware toaster? Do you really want a toaster that can experience ennui? Do you crave a discussion as to why the English muffin should not be burnt?
Jan '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
Fred Cole
I'm been thinking a lot about robots and if they're people or not.
I'm curious where the line is and when a robot becomes a person and not just property.
And I asked because I was looking for perspectives from our diverse crowd. · 1 hour ago
OK, just so long as you're not being held prisoner by Schwarzenegger and suffering from Stockholm Syndrome or anything.
But seriously ...
I hesitate. To suggest that there's a line between human beings and robots where one becomes a person ... is to define "personhood." And because that same question is at play in several other debates (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) I'm debating whether I really want to plunge into your question.
Nov '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
KC Mulville
And because thatsame question is at play in several other debates (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) I'm debating whether I really want to plunge into your question. · 32 minutes ago
Well, two things:
1. What could it hurt?
2. If you can define a consistent principle that can applied to those other debates (and I was conscious of them when I created this thread), that could only make you stronger.
May '10
Re: Robots Are People Too?
Fred Cole: This robot has intelligence at or slightly above that of a human and sentience.
Is that robot a person?
No. A robot has no subjectivity, no interiority, no self-possession, no self.
It is neither free nor responsible. It has no existential plenitude, as every person does.
No. Rights have everything to do with the natural dignity and self-possession of persons. Also, rights are not something we "offer"; they are endowed by God. Persons have no moral duties toward robots, as we do toward other persons.
No, no, and no.
Nov '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
katievs
Fred Cole: This robot has intelligence at or slightly above that of a human and sentience.
Is that robot a person?
No. A robot has no subjectivity, no interiority, no self-possession, no self.
It is neither free nor responsible. It has no existential plenitude, as every person does.
No. Rights have everything to do with the natural dignity and self-possession of persons. Also, rights are not something we "offer"; they are endowed by God. Persons have no moral duties toward robots, as we do toward other persons.
No, no, and no. · 11 minutes ago
Sorry, Katie, your answers were kind of ambiguous.
Also, you didn't answer the last question.
Jan '11
Re: Robots Are People Too?
I reject the notion of personhood.
Legally, a "person" is fiction, comprised of one or more human beings (never anything other than a human; the difference is in quantity not quality) who operate as one, in a way that corporations or partnerships don't cover.
Colloquially, on the other hand, the word person means nothing different than human. You can't have a robot-person, because a robot is by definition not human.
Well, someone might say, we could choose to treat a robot with the same rights as a human if we so chose. Well, I suppose we could, in the same way we could endow plants and furniture with human rights if we so chose. Once you stipulate that we can endow anything and everything with "human rights," you've fled normal usage anyway, so what difference would it make?
The problem is that robots mimic human intelligence, and artificial intelligence can do everything (in fact, better) than human intelligence ... but that merely reveals that the quality you want to treat with respect is intelligence, not humanity.
Which leaves the question: do you respect intelligence, or humanity? Do you only respect humans because they're intelligent?