A central question in contemporary ethics and political philosophy concerns which entities have moral status. In this article, I provide a detailed analysis of the view that moral status comes in degrees. I argue that degrees of moral status can be specified along two dimensions: (i) the weight of the reason to protect an entity’s morally significant rights and interests; and/or (ii) the rights and interests that are considered morally significant. And I explore some of the complexities that arise when (...) we link degrees of moral status to the weight of reasons to protect bundles and/or the content and size of these bundles, in particular regarding the attribution of moral status to nonparadigmatic entities (e.g. people with severe cognitive disabilities, children, embryos and foetuses, robots, non-human animals, ecosystems, and rivers). (shrink)

Consulting early and medieval Christian thinkers, I theologically analyze the question of how we are to construe and live well with the sociable robot under the ancient theological concept of “glory”—the manifestation of God’s nature and life outside of himself. First, the oft-noted Western wariness toward robots may in part be rooted in protecting a certain idea of the “person” as a relational subject capable of self-gift. Historically, this understanding of the person derived from Christian belief in God the Trinity, (...) an eternally relational and self-giving God who has created all other things. According to this trinitarian anthropology, the “glory” of God is the manifestation of his life outside of himself, especially in human relationships of self-possessed empathic self-giving. Second, the material world can be drawn into this glorification of God by the invention of technologies, including robots. For Christianity, the personal transcends the material, and matter cannot simply be recombined to make a person. Nonetheless, the material world is a lesser glory that echoes fragmentarily the primal self-gift by which God exists. Human persons can marshal these material powers to serve the personal by the invention of technology, which extends the possibilities of human self-giving and, therefore, of God’s “glory.” Third, this Christian account of creation and technology shapes medieval Christian writings on humanoid robots. These “automata” uniquely draw together nature’s deep powers, but they lack true personal interiority and so cannot give themselves. Instead, they are instruments by which humans’ own relational personhood can be developed or degraded. At best, a robotic image of personhood can serve as an “icon,” directing us back to the relationality by which humans echo God. At worst, robots serve as “idols” when they become substitutes for human companions, drawing their users into a utilitarian frame that excludes self-gift by simply mirroring back to the user his or her own aims. I illustrate these outcomes by two medieval legends. In one, robots function iconically as social facilitators; in the other, as ambiguous romantic partners. And fourth, looking to an actual renaissance-era “praying” robot, I will propose that the non-subjective robot might yet “glorify God” within the religious community by representing the prayers of particular humans—thus iconically standing for rather than idolatrously standing in for the relational subject. (shrink)

We are sometimes unsure of the moral status of our relationships with other entities. Recent case studies in this uncertainty include our relationships with artificial agents (robots, assistant AI, etc.), animals, and patients with “locked-in” syndrome. Do these entities have basic moral standing? Could they count as true friends or lovers? What should we do when we do not know the answer to these questions? An influential line of reasoning suggests that, in such cases of moral uncertainty, we need meta-moral (...) decision rules that allow us to either minimize the risks of moral wrongdoing or improve the choice-worthiness of our actions. One particular argument adopted in this literature is the “risk asymmetry argument,” which claims that the risks associated with accepting or rejecting some moral facts may be sufficiently asymmetrical as to warrant favoring a particular practical resolution of this uncertainty. Focusing on the case study of artificial beings, this article argues that this is best understood as an ethical-epistemic challenge. The article argues that taking potential risk asymmetries seriously can help resolve disputes about the status of human–AI relationships, at least in practical terms (philosophical debates will, no doubt, continue); however, the resolution depends on a proper, empirically grounded assessment of the risks involved. Being skeptical about basic moral status, but more open to the possibility of meaningful relationships with such entities, may be the most sensible approach to take. (shrink)

Many optimistic responses have been proposed to bridge the threat of responsibility gaps which artificial systems create. This paper identifies a question which arises if this optimistic project proves successful. On a response-dependent understanding of responsibility, our responsibility practices themselves at least partially determine who counts as a responsible agent. On this basis, if AI or robot technology advance such that AI or robot agents become fitting participants within responsibility exchanges, then responsibility itself might be engineered. If we have good (...) reason to think such technological advances are likely, then we should take steps to address the potential for engineering responsibility. (shrink)

Questions about robots feeling pain are important because the experience of pain implies sentience and the ability to suffer. Pain is not the same as nociception, a reflex response to an aversive stimulus. The experience of pain in others has to be inferred. Danaher’s (Sci Eng Ethics 26(4):2023–2049, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00119-x) ‘ethical behaviourist’ account claims that if a robot behaves in the same way as an animal that is recognised to have moral status, then its moral status should also be assumed. (...) Similarly, under a precautionary approach (Sebo in Harvard Rev Philos 25:51–70, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5840/harvardreview20185913), entities from foetuses to plants and robots are given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be sentient. However, there is a growing consensus about the scientific criteria used to indicate pain and the ability to suffer in animals (Birch in Anim Sentience, 2017. https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1200; Sneddon et al. in Anim Behav 97:201–212, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.09.007). These include the presence of a central nervous system, changed behaviour in response to pain, and the effects of analgesic pain relief. Few of these criteria are met by robots, and there are risks to assuming that they are sentient and capable of suffering pain. Since robots lack nervous systems and living bodies there is little reason to believe that future robots capable of feeling pain could (or should) be developed. (shrink)

If we could build artificial persons (APs) with a moral status comparable to this of a typical human being, how should we design those APs in the right way? This question has been addressed mainly in terms of designing APs devoted to being servants (AP servants) and debated in reference to their autonomy and the harm they might experience. Recently, it has been argued that even if developing AP servants would neither deprive them of autonomy nor cause any net harm, (...) then developing such entities would still be unethical due to the manipulative attitude of their designers. I make two contributions to this discussion. First, I claim that the argument about manipulative attitude significantly shifts the perspective of the whole discussion on APs and that it refers to a much wider range of types of APs than has been acknowledged. Second, I investigate the possibilities of developing APs without a manipulative attitude. I proceed in the following manner: (1) I examine the argument about manipulativeness; (2) show the important novelty it brings to a discussion about APs; (3) analyze how the argument can be extrapolated to designing other kinds of Aps; and (4) discuss cases in which APs can be designed without manipulativeness. (shrink)

In a recent commentary, John-Stewart Gordon points to the need for further elaboration of the pragmatic approach to moral status that I have defended. On the one hand, Gordon points to the need for a clearer account of when individualist and relational deliberative strategies should be employed. On the other hand, he observes that the pragmatic account appears to conflate two theoretical tasks that are typically understood as distinct: the task of determining the grounds of moral status, and the subsequent (...) task of ethical decision-making. This article offers a reply to Gordon’s critical remarks. (shrink)

This commentary critically evaluates Showler’s pragmatic approach to moral status, which integrates moral individualism and moral relationalism to address the moral complexities surrounding non-human entities, especially social robots. Showler proposes a unified methodology that delineates distinct roles for each theory—moral coordination problems for moral individualism and moral transformation for moral relationalism. However, my commentary identifies key methodological ambiguities and potential conflation of moral status determination with broader ethical reasoning. It argues for clearer application guidelines and further theoretical refinement to enhance (...) the framework’s robustness and practical applicability, suggesting this model as an interesting starting point for further debates on moral status. (shrink)