DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Role-based Morality, Ethical Pluralism, and Morally Capable Robots

  • Zhu, Qin (Department of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Colorado School of Mines) ;
  • Williams, Tom (Department of Computer Science, Colorado School of Mines) ;
  • Wen, Ruchen (Department of Computer Science, Colorado School of Mines)
  • Published : 2021.08.19

Abstract

Dominant approaches to designing morally capable robots have been mainly based on rule-based ethical frameworks such as deontology and consequentialism. These approaches have encountered both philosophical and computational limitations. They often struggle to accommodate remarkably diverse, unstable, and complex contexts of human-robot interaction. Roboticists and philosophers have recently been exploring underrepresented ethical traditions such as virtuous, role-based, and relational ethical frameworks for designing morally capable robots. This paper employs the lens of ethical pluralism to examine the notion of role-based morality in the global context and discuss how such cross-cultural analysis of role ethics can inform the design of morally competent robots. In doing so, it first provides a concise introduction to ethical pluralism and how it has been employed as a method to interpret issues in computer and information ethics. Second, it reviews specific schools of thought in Western ethics that derive morality from role-based obligations. Third, it presents a more recent effort in Confucianism to reconceptualize Confucian ethics as a role-based ethic. This paper then compares the shared norms and irreducible differences between Western and Eastern approaches to role ethics. Finally, it discusses how such examination of pluralist views of role ethics across cultures can be conducive to the design of morally capable robots sensitive to diverse value systems in the global context.

References

  1. Ames, R. (2021). Human becomings: Theorizing persons for Confucian role ethics. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  2. Ames, R., & Rosemont, H. (2011). Were the early Confucian virtuous? In C. Fraser, D. Robins & T. O'Leary (Eds.), Ethics in early China: An anthology (pp. 17-39). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.
  3. Ames, R. T. (2011). Confucian role ethics: A vocabulary. Hong Kong, China: Chinese University Press.
  4. Angle, S. (2018). Building bridges to distinct shores: Pragmatic problems with Confucian role ethics. In J. Behuniak (Ed.), Appreciating the Chinese difference: Engaging Roger T. Ames on methods, issues, and roles (pp. 159-182). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  5. Bell, D. A. (2018). Roles, community, and morality: Comment on Confucian Role Ethics. In J. Behuniak (Ed.), Appreciating the Chinese difference: Engaging Roger T. Ames on methods, issues, and roles (pp. 203-212). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  6. Bringsjord, S., Arkoudas, K., & Bello, P. (2006). Toward a general logicist methodology for engineering ethically correct robots. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 38-44.
  7. Cappuccio, M. L., Sandoval, E. B., Mubin, O., Obaid, M., & Velonaki, M. (2021). Can robots make us better humans?: Virtuous robotics and the good life with artificial agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7-22.
  8. Chan, J. (2008). Territorial boundaries and Confucianism. In D. A. Bell (Ed.), Confucian political ethics (pp. 61-84). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  9. Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics and Information Technology, 12, 209-221.
  10. Cottine, C. (2020). That's what friends are for: A Confucian perspective on the moral significance of friendship. In T. Dare, & C. Swanton (Eds.), Perspectives in role ethics: Virtues, reasons, and obligation (pp. 123-142). New York, NY: Routledge.
  11. Dare, T. (2009). The counsel of rogues? A defence of the standard conception of the lawyer's role. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
  12. Dare, T. (2020). Roles all the way down. In T. Dare, & C. Swanton (Eds.), Perspectives in role ethics: Virtues, reasons, and obligations (pp. 31-44). New York: Routledge.
  13. Dare, T., & Swanton, C. (2020). Introduction. In T. Dare, & C. Swanton (Eds.), Perspectives in role ethics: Virtues, reasons, and obligation (pp. 1-7). New York, NY: Routledge.
  14. Ess, C. (2006). Ethical pluralism and global information ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(4), 215-226.
  15. Govindarajulu, N. S., Bringsjord, S., Ghosh, R., & Sarathy, V. (2019). Toward the engineering of virtuous machines. Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Honolulu, HI. January 27-28.
  16. Hagen, K. (2010). The propriety of Confucius: A sense-of-ritual. Asian Philosophy, 20(1), 1-25.
  17. Higgins, K. M. (2018). Performance in Confucian role ethics. In J. Behuniak (Ed.), Appreciating the Chinese difference: Engaging Roger T. Ames on methods, issues, and roles (pp. 213-228). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  18. Johnson, B. E. (2014). The role ethics of Epictetus: Stoicism in ordinary life. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
  19. Kasenberg, D., Arnold, T., & Scheutz, M. (2018). Norms, rewards, and the intentional stance: Comparing machine learning approaches to ethical training. Proceedings of 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, New Orleans, LA. February 2-3.
  20. Kasenberg, D., Roque, A., Thielstrom, R., Chita-Tegmark, M., & Scheutz, M. (2019). Generating justifications for norm-related agent decisions. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, Tokyo, Japan. October 29 - November 1.
  21. Kim, B., Wen, R., Zhu, Q., Williams, T., & Phillips, E. (2021). Robots as moral advisors: The effects of deontological, virtue, and Confucian ethics on encouraging honest behavior. Proceedings of HRI '21: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (virtual). March 8-11.
  22. Korsgaard, C. M. (1993). The reasons we can share: An attack on the distinction between agent- relative and agent neutral values. Social Philosophy and Policy, 10(1), 24-51.
  23. Korsgaard, C. (2009). Self-constitution: Agency, identity and integrity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  24. Kuipers, B. (2018). How can we trust a robot? Communications of the ACM, 61(3), 86-95.
  25. Langley, P. (2019). Explainable, normative, and justified agency. Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Honolulu, HI. January 27 - February 1.
  26. Luban, D. (1988). Lawyers and justice: An ethical study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  27. Malle, B. F., Scheutz, M., & Austerweil, J. L. (2017). Networks of social and moral norms in human and robot agents. In M. I. A. Ferreira, J. S. Sequeira, O. M. Tokhi, E. Kadar & G. S. Virk (Eds.), A world with robots: International conference on robot ethics (pp. 3-17). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  28. Ni, P. (2018). Does Confucianism need a metaphysical theory of human nature?: Reflections on Ames-Rosemont role ethics. In J. Behuniak (Ed.), Appreciating the Chinese difference: Engaging Roger T. Ames on methods, issues, and roles (pp. 183-202). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  29. Nuyen, A. T. (2007). Confucian ethics as role-based ethics. International Philosophical Quarterly, 47(3), 315-328.
  30. Pettigrove, G. (2020). Characters and roles. In T. Dare, & C. Swanton (Eds.), Perspectives in role ethics: Virtues, reasons, and obligation (pp. 11-30). New York, NY: Routledge.
  31. Puett, M., & Gross-Loh, C. (2016). The path: What Chinese philosophers can teach us about the good life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
  32. Rosemont, H. (2015). Against individualism: A Confucian rethinking of the foundations of morality, politics, family, and religion. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
  33. Rosemont, H., & Ames, R. (2016). Confucian role ethics: A moral vision for the 21st century? Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan University Press.
  34. Sarathy, V., Scheutz, M., & Malle, B. (2017). Learning behavioral norms in uncertain and changing contexts. Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), Debrecen, Hungry. September 11-14.
  35. Scheutz, M., Malle, B., & Briggs, G. (2015). Towards morally sensitive action selection for autonomous social robots. Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Kobe, Japan. August 31 - September 4.
  36. Seddon, K. H. (n.d.). Epictetus. International encyclopedia of philosophy. https://www.iep.utm.edu/epictetu/. Accessed 12 April 2019.
  37. Swanton, C. (2020). Expertise and virtue in role ethics. In T. Dare & C. Swanton (Eds.), Perspectives in role ethics: Virtues, reasons, and obligation (pp. 45-71). New York, NY: Routledge.
  38. Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  39. Wang, K. (2017). Xunzi's virtue ethics of rationality and the issue of emotions. In X. Yao (Ed.), Reconceptualizing Confucian philosophy in the 21st century (pp. 35-42). Singapore: Springer.
  40. Weinstock, D. M. (1998). Moral pluralism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Routledge. Retrieved January 5, 2021, from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/moral-pluralism/v-1
  41. Williams, T., Zhu, Q., Wen, R., & de Visser, E. (2020). The Confucian matador: Three defenses against the mechanical bull. Proceedings of HRI '20: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Cambridge, UK. March 23-26.
  42. Zhu, Q., Williams, T., Jackson, B., & Wen, R. (2020). Blame-laden moral rebukes and the morally competent robot: A Confucian ethical perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(5), 2511-2526.
  43. Zhu, Q. (2018). Confucian ethics, ethical leadership, and engineering ethics education. International Journal of Ethics Education, 3(2), 169-179.