Android Science and the Animal Rights Movement : Are There Analogies ?

The day is already here when androids perform tasks and act in ways which seem to be human. However, as of now, no one is prepared to view these man-made creations as anything other than property to be used for our benefit or entertainment. As the systems become more sophisticated, and as engineers try harder to build “conscious” machines, I suggest that a number of moral, ethical, and legal issues could arise. By drawing upon the animal rights movement, an analogy can be drawn which suggests that, given the right degree of complexity, androids may have a claim to a certain level of moral status. However, to assert a claim that androids could become legal persons, something more is needed; the analogy is not perfect. Despite similarities there are significant differences between the animal and the android at levels deeper than the mere physical. Identifying these points of similarity and divergence may ultimately depend upon how we come to understand the concept of human consciousness. Furthermore, by comparing animals and androids, we might also begin to see how our ideas about consciousness impact on our concept of rights. It is also suggested that a point of moral concern may come quite early in any development process, and when it does, it could have some unexpected ramifications if not understood by researchers. Failure to be aware of this risk could result in reactions that curtail the very development of android science.

[1]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Designing sociable robots , 2002 .

[2]  David DeGrazia,et al.  Taking animals seriously , 1996 .

[3]  E. Hannum INDIVIDUALS , 1934, Francis W. Parker School Studies in Education.

[4]  Ma Hong,et al.  ‘Person’ in law , 2000 .

[5]  Stan Franklin Evolutionary pressures and a stable world for animals and robots: A commentary on Merker , 2005, Consciousness and Cognition.

[6]  R. Ryder,et al.  Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism , 2001, Animal Welfare.

[7]  Jacob O. Wobbrock,et al.  Liability for Autonomous Agent Design , 1998, AGENTS '98.

[8]  Michael R. LaChat,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: An Exercise in the Moral Imagination , 1986, AI Mag..

[9]  J. C. Gray The nature and sources of the law , 1921 .

[10]  R. Sorabji Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate , 1995 .

[11]  T L S Sprigge,et al.  Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals , 1981 .

[12]  Guy Immega,et al.  The Evolution of Consciousness , 2018, Nature.

[13]  John Charvet,et al.  The right to private property , 1991 .

[14]  S. Pinker The Language Instinct , 1994 .

[15]  M. Midgley Animals and Why They Matter , 1984, Mary Midgley.

[16]  A. Gini,et al.  Philosophical Issues in Human Rights , 1986 .

[17]  G. Ryle,et al.  The concept of mind. , 2004, The International journal of psycho-analysis.

[18]  T. Kanda,et al.  Can we talk to robots? Ten-month-old infants expected interactive humanoid robots to be talked to by persons , 2005, Cognition.

[19]  Frederick Schauer,et al.  The Limited Domain of the Law , 2004 .

[20]  Carl E. Schneider,et al.  The\Law of Bioethics:Individual Autonomy and Social Regulation , 2002 .

[21]  Gary L. Francione,et al.  Introduction to Animal Rights , 2000 .

[22]  Garrett Hardin,et al.  Should Trees Have Standing?: Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects , 2012 .

[23]  Hugo de Garis What If AI Succeeds? The Rise of the Twenty-First Century Artilect , 1989, AI Mag..

[24]  H. de Garis What if AI succeeds?: the rise of the 21st century artilect , 1989 .

[25]  J. B. Callicott,et al.  The Case for Animal Rights , 1985 .

[26]  Stan Franklin,et al.  IDA, a Conscious Artifact? , 2006 .

[27]  J. Bentham An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , 1945, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[28]  Gregory Mark,et al.  The Personification of the Business Corporation in American Law, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1441 (1987) , 1987 .