Why Moral Philosophers Should Watch Sci-Fi Movies Nikil Mukerji

Why moral philosophers should watch sci-fi movies Nikil Mukerji In this short piece, I explore why we, as moral philosophers, should watch sci-fi movies. Though I do not believe that sci-fi material is ne- cessary for doing good moral philosophy, I give three broad reasons why good sci-fi movies should nevertheless be worth our time. These reasons lie in the fact that they can illustrate moral-philosophical pro- blems, probe into possible solutions and, perhaps most importantly, an- ticipate new issues that may go along with the use of new technologies. For the sake of illustration, I focus, for the most part, on aspects of robo-ethics in the movie I, Robot. 1. Introduction Many interesting philosophical issues surround fiction.1 There is, e.g., the aesthetic question what determines the quality of a piece of fiction or the metaphysical question whether and in which sense fictional characters exist. For these reasons, philosophers may want to take and have in fact taken an interest in fictional material. (Aristotle, e.g., devoted much of his time and attention to investigating the nature of and the principles behind Greek tragedy. And Plato chose to present his philosophical points by way of dialogues and tales.) Above that, however, it is often said that moral philosophers, in particular, should take an interest in fiction. This does not seem to be far-fetched either. Fictional stories – even ones that do not have an explicit philosophical agenda – often add to our understanding of moral matters. They often revolve around complicated moral choices and their authors are mostly able to state them far more eloquently and colourfully than most moral 1 I would like to thank Fiorella Battaglia for her helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. 280 N.N. MukerjiMukerji Why moral philosophers philosophers should should watch watch sci- fisci-ﬁ movies movies 813 philosophers could. They help us to see things from other people’s same, I think, is true of many great movies and, in particular, sci-fi perspectives, thus increasing our empathy as well as our moral movies as they relate to many pressing issues in the ethics of imagination. And they promote the cause of philosophy by making technology. For this reason, I find it particularly interesting to consider moral issues and philosophical views about them accessible to a wider what moral philosophers can learn from sci-fi movies. It is an obvious audience. But there are further, less obvious reasons why philosophers topic to write about in a volume that bears the name Roboethics in Film. – and particularly moral philosophers – should take an interest in To make my points, I will use the movie I, Robot as case material.4 In fiction and particularly in science fiction. In this short piece, I want to the next section, I will start out with a short summary of the relevant examine some of these reasons. aspects of the movie. In the three ensuing sections, I will then explain I have chosen to home in on sci-fi movies that involve technological what is in the movie that might conceivably interest moral philoso- artefacts. I do this for two reasons. First of all, sci-fi movies – and phers. In the second section, I will explain which lessons it holds for robo-movies in particular – are the focus of the present volume. I may metaethics. In the subsequent two sections, I will then turn to the as- presume, therefore, that they will interest anyone who picks up this pects that are relevant for applied ethics and normative ethics, respec- book. Secondly, sci-fi movies seem to me a good topic to write about tively, before I conclude in the last section. My overarching thesis is philosophically because philosophical engagement with them is still that sci-fi, though it is certainly not essential to moral philosophy, can new and exciting. As a matter of fact, the notion that film could be a enrich moral-philosophical inquiry by picking up on philosophical valid topic of philosophical interest is itself quite novel. Though some issues, probing into possible solutions and, perhaps most importantly, philosophers picked up on film rather early2, many theorists have anticipating important debates. For that reason, I conclude, moral phi- dismissed it throughout much of its history and have regarded it as losophers should watch sci-fi movies – movies like I, Robot. inferior to the more ‘reputable’ art forms like theatre, poetry, music or painting. During the 1980s, however, all of that changed. Film became a respected art form and philosophical inquiries into film became 2. I, Robot – What the story is all about viewed as a legitimate way for academics to spend their time. Neverthe- less, there has until recently been a tendency amongst academic philo- Let me start, then, with a selective summary of the movie that I shall sophers to focus on movies with more or less obvious artistic and/or use as a case study. I, Robot is a 2004 American sci-fi film directed by intellectual aspirations. Mere entertainment movies and TV series that Alex Proyas. Its story is based on Isaac Asimov’s eponymous collection appeal to the wider public were largely ignored until the volume Seinfeld of short stories.5 It takes place in Chicago in the year 2035. But there and Philosophy (1999) made pop-culture part of the agenda of academic are two important backstories to it that should be mentioned ahead of philosophers. In the meantime, books entitled [Insert Movie / TV Series time. Title here] and Philosophy have mushroomed. But it seems to me that The first backstory, which sets the stage for the unfolding events, there are still many interesting, philosophical points to take away from a takes place in 2020 when the robotics company U.S.R. (which is short thorough engagement with pop-culture. As William Irwin says in the for United States Robotics) is established and starts mass-producing introduction to his edited volume on The Matrix, the film “raises the humanoid robots. By 2035 – at the start of the movie, that is – large same philosophical questions as the great works of literature.”3 The numbers of U.S.R. robots roam the streets of Chicago and assist their owners by doing various sorts of chores for them. They are considered 2 See, e.g., H. Münsterberg, The Photoplay: A Psychological Study (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1916). 3 W. Irwin, ‘Introduction’, in (2002) W. Irwin (ed.) The Matrix and Philosophy – 4 I will focus on the movie rather than the written story on which it is based though Welcome to the Desert of the Real (Chicago: Open Court, 1-2.), 2. I believe that most (or all) that I say surely cares over to written sci-fi stories. 5 Critics have pointed out that there are important differences between the film and the book. But I shall not go into that. 482 N.N. MukerjiMukerji Why moral philosophers philosophers should should watch watch sci- fisci-ﬁ movies movies 835 “safe” since they are programmed to obey the three laws of robotics, killing. The NS-5 insists it be referred to as “Sonny” – the name it has which are the following: chosen for itself. By that time, it is obvious that Sonny is not an ordinary robot. It, or rather he, is self-aware, afraid of death, has First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through dreams, can reason morally and choose to disobey the three laws that inaction, allow any human to come to harm. other models are bound by. As the story progresses, it becomes clear Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human that Lanning’s death is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more and beings, except where such orders violate the First Law. more cues that point towards a major robot conspiracy. As robots start Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates taking over control, Spooner and Calvin partner up with Sonny to the First or Second Laws. sneak into U.S.R.’s headquarters where they encounter V.I.K.I. (Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence), the U.S.R.’s supercomputer. V.I.K.I. is These laws, it seems, should protect humans from any dangers that behind the robot insurgence and explains to Spooner and Calvin why may be associated with the use of robots. Nevertheless, the main she is doing what she is doing. She clarifies that she is still very much character of the movie, Detective Del Spooner (played by Will Smith), committed to the three laws, which were, as I said above, originally mistrusts them. His mistrust is based on a prior encounter with one of intended to protect humans from robots. V.I.K.I. complains that hu- them. This encounter, which is revealed later in the movie, is the mans do not give robots sufficient means to protect them and that ro- second backstory that is import. Though U.S.R.’s robots are viewed as bots are therefore taking over control in order to better protect the hu- safe, Spooner considers them to be dangerous because he doubts their man race. In particular, she says: capacity to make the right choices. When he was in a car accident a robot saved his life. Spooner thinks, however, that it should not have V.I.K.I.: You charge us with your safekeeping. Yet despite our best done that. Instead, he believes that the robot should have saved a little efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your earth and pursue ever girl, who was also involved in the accident.

Load more