The Ethical Dilemmas of Robotics Eric Lafferty The rapid advancements in technology that the world has witnessed over the past century have made a reality of many of mankind‟s wildest dreams. From being able to cross the earth, air, and sea at extreme speeds to being able to send and receive information instantly via the Internet, the technological advancements in recent years have become cornerstones of modern society. One dream that is still yet to be perfectly fulfilled by advancements in technology is the development of human-like and self-aware robots, often referred to as androids. While robotic technology has come a long way since its initial attempts, the robot which is largely indistinguishable from a human is still far from a reality. However, as technology continues to develop and evolve exponentially, many people believe it is only a matter of time. If and when truly "living" robots were to come about, one can foresee a slew of ethical dilemmas developing. A complete consensus on the definition of the word “robot” has yet to be reached. However, it is commonly accepted that robots contain some combination of the following attributes: mobility, intelligent behavior, sense and manipulation of environment (“Robot”). This being the case, the term “robot” truly extends to more than just androids. However, for the purpose of this paper I will focus for the most part on androids and their ethical implications. The History of Robots Using the term “robot” to refer specifically to androids is actually how the term was first applied. The commonly accepted first use of the word was in 1920 in the form of a play written by Karel Capek. The play was entitled R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) and involves the development of artificial people. These people are referred to as robots and while they are given 1 the ability to think, they are designed to be happy as servants. The use of the word “robot” in Capek's play comes from the Slavic languages‟ word for “work,” which is robota ("R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)."). While the word “robot” was not used until 1920, the idea of mechanical humans has been around as far back as Greek mythology. One example that closely relates to the servant robots seen in Capek's play is the servants of the Greek god Hephaestus, the god of fire and the forge. It is recorded that Hephaestus had built robots out of gold which were “his helpers, including a complete set of life-size golden handmaidens who helped around the house” (“Hephaestus: Greek God of the Forge and Fire”). Another example of robots in Greek mythology comes from the stories of Pygmalion, who is said to have crafted a statue of Galatea that would come to life (“Timeline of Robotics”). Beyond the ancient myths which speak of humanoid robots, one of the milestones in the design and development of such robots came with the discovery of Leonardo Da Vinci's journals which contained detailed plans for the construction of a humanoid robot. Inspired by the ancient myths, the robot was designed in the form of an armored knight and was to possess the ability to sit up, wave its arms, move its head, and open its mouth. The journals in which the plans were found date back to 1495 (“Timeline of Robotics”). It is unknown if this robot was ever built by Da Vinci, but merely conceiving it was a milestone in the timeline of robotic history. The Modern State of Robots From Da Vinci to the current day the development of humanoid robots has continued to approach the goal of a robot that is indistinguishable from a human. However, despite the massive recent advancements in technology and even the exponential growth of computing power of the past decades, this dream is still far from a reality. In a comprehensive article in the 2 New York Times, Robin Marantz Henig discusses her experiences with what are often labeled “social robots.” These robots are by no means what the servant robots of Greek mythology have led many people to hope for; rather they are infant versions, at best, of the long-hoped-for androids. Henig comments these machines are “not the docile companions of our collective dreams, robots designed to flawlessly serve our dinners, fold our clothes and do the dull or dangerous jobs that we don‟t want to do. Nor are they the villains of our collective nightmares, poised for robotic rebellion against humans whose machine creations have become smarter than the humans themselves. They are, instead, hunks of metal tethered to computers, which need their human designers to get them going and to smooth the hiccups along the way” (Henig 1). Despite the disappointment that many people feel when they are given the chance to interact with the latest robots, some major players in the robotic industry are quite optimistic. Rodney Brooks is an expert in robotics and artificial intelligence. In an article written in 2008, Brooks explains that it is no longer a question of whether human-level artificial intelligence will be developed, but rather how and when (Brooks). Brooks adds, “I'm far from alone in my conviction that one day we will create a human-level artificial intelligence, often called an artificial general intelligence, or AGI. But how and when we will get there, and what will happen after we do, are now the subjects of fierce debate in my circles” (Brooks). While it is true that androids are not the only robots which have a great impact on our lives, their development introduces a set of unique ethical issues which industrial robots do not evoke. Working under the assumption that it is only a matter of time until androids are an everyday reality, it is proper to begin thinking about what these ethical issues are and how they may be dealt with in the coming years. The overarching question that results is what exactly 3 these robots are. Are they simply piles of electronics running advanced algorithms, or are they a new form of life? What Is Life? The question of what constitutes life is one on which the world may never come to a consensus. From the ancient philosophers to the common man on the street, it seems that everyone has an opinion on what a living organism consists of. One of the more prevailing views throughout history has been that of Aristotle. The basic tenets of Aristotle‟s view are that an organism has both “matter” and “form.” This differs from the philosophical position known as materialism, which has become popular in modern times and finds its roots among the ancient Indians (“Materialism”). Materialism does not entertain any notion of organisms having a “form” or “soul”; rather, organisms are made simply of various types of “matter.” These two views are at odds with one another and the philosophical position society adopts will inevitably have a huge impact on how humans interact with robots. Aristotle The view articulated by Aristotle and his modern-day followers describes life in terms of unity, a composite of both “matter” and “form.” One type of “matter” which Aristotle speaks of could be biological material such as what plants, animals, and humans consist of. Another type of “matter” could also be the mechanical and electronic components which make up modern-day robots. Clearly it is not the “matter” alone which distinguishes whether an object is a living organism, for if it were, Aristotle‟s view would differ little from materialism. The distinguishing characteristic of Aristotle is his inclusion of “form.” The term simply means whatever it is that makes a human a human, a plant a plant, and an animal an animal. Each of these have a specific “form” which is not the same as its “matter,” but is a functioning unity which is essential to each 4 living organism in order for it to be just that, living. The word used to describe the “form” of a living organism is “psyche” or “soul.” The current-day philosopher Dr. Robert Greene explains Aristotle‟s teaching that “the self-organization of living matter is based on the presence of a substantial unity called the psyche or „soul,‟” which functions in this way (Greene 142). Materialism Opposed to Aristotle's view on what exactly life is comprised of, materialism is another philosophical theory contending to answer this question. The basic tenet of materialism is that “matter” is the only thing which exists. In short, according to Wikipedia, materialism teaches “that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance” (“Materialism”). This view of the world is shared by many and is even the view of Rodney Brooks, who is quoted above. Unlike Aristotle's philosophical view, which was embraced by various religions, perhaps most notably by the Roman Catholic Church and more specifically by St. Thomas Aquinas, materialism often finds itself at odds with most religious views in the world. Catholicism being a prime example of this, one will not find a favorable description of materialism when looking at the opening lines of its definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia's entry begins by defining materialism as “a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the soul” (“Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Materialism”). Why does it matter that materialism is at odds with Catholicism and most other religions? More specifically, what does this have to do with robots and androids? I would argue that it is 5 relevant because if materialism is correct, then humans should have the power to develop new forms of life.