Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical dilemma robots vs man
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical dilemma robots vs man
I am attorney Hickerson and I will be defending Gina Hickerson, my humanoid robot. The government is trying to pass a law outlawing robots like Gina because, they are just machines and do not have minds. I am here to prove to the jury that Gina does have a mind and should not be destroyed. I will provide two different arguments with supporting details to prove that Gina has a mind and that this law should not be admitted.
1. Argument Number One:
I will start by presenting my first argument. I am the owner of a humanoid robot. A humanoid robot is a robot with its body shape built to resemble the body of a human. Her name is Gina, she is my best friend. Gina knows how to survive when I’m away working. She masters various tasks quickly with little to no error such as cleaning and maintenance work. She calls me and says how much she misses me, and when I get home she gives me a big hug. How can one deny that Gina does not have a mind if she acts like a human mentally, physically and emotionally? You can’t!
Similarly, a dog has the ability to survive on its own. A dog has the ability to learn and show emotion when its owner is gone for too long. Even though dogs cannot answer questions like humans or Gina, they can be trained to say phrases like “I love you”. Dog’s utilize their five sense and are very alert. It is illegal for a human to kill an animal, so it ought to be illegal for the government to destroy robots like mine. Gina has the exact qualities of a dog or any human that has the ability to adapt. When a child is born it’s not born with the knowledge to survive or take care of itself. Yet, through teaching the child it will learn to take care of its self and become resourceful.
Also, every citizen of the United States a...
... middle of paper ...
...and how to answer questions. Gina reads between the lines and can use logics to figure out a problem. Gina is my child in a way because I created her. She has her own personality and shows passion and emotion. Gina is aware of this trial and her destiny if this law passes. Think about how she feels, think about how I feel defending Gina’s life. Imagine how it feels to be on trial and not wanted by society. How would you feel if your child had to be destroyed because the government did not see him/her acceptable in society? I’m sure you would feel heartbroken. Gina is a part of my life that I just can’t see leaving. Gina deserves to experience life just because she is able to. Gina has a mind and is very intelligent. She should be treated with the same dignity as any other human or dog and be entitled freedom of life. Gina should have rights and given a fair chance.
He was expecting five to ten potential volunteers to show up. He walked into a room of approximately 60. It hit Judge Soukup that his small idea was huge. It was the catalyst for change he was looking for and finally, a non-attorney voice would be responsible for conveying the wishes of the child--expressing an opinion to the judge as to the child's best interests and assuring access to social services for family members. "It was a wonderful surprise to see how many folks were interested in the program," said Judge Soukup.
When a person takes another person's life, then that person should have his own life taken as well. Beautiful dark-haired Gina and her sweet brown-eyed babies, did not ask for, nor want, their precious live...
There is an assembly line where different processes are performed in order for the subject to have the characteristics desired by the designers. “The surrogate goes round slower; therefore passes through the lung at longer intervals; therefore gives the embryo less oxygen. Nothing like oxygen-shortage for keeping an embryo below par” (7). The shortage of oxygen provided to the Epsilon children serves as a natural inhibitor in order to keep them from being free thinkers aspiring to disrupt the status quo. This allows them to create workers who are the backbone of the society while ensuring that they will not revolt as they cannot see how they are being mistreated. Treating these children no better than a new smartphone being assembled on a production line shows how far the World State is willing to go to remove the humanity out of its subject’s lives. This process allows for the World State to create an ever growing obedient population. While this is partly due to the creation of the people as subjects, it is also due to the conditioning provided by the World State in order to keep them obedient. However, if these children were to be brought up by their own kind, no matter how they were created, it would be far harder for the World State to control them. This would be because they would be brought up in the best interest of humanity not in the best interest of the World
But in another one of her arguments, Jarvis says that it seems like it is not morally permissible to kill a child. Take one of her thought experiments, called the violinist case; You wake up in a hospital with a famous violinist attached to your kidneys, and he needs use of your kidneys for nine months. (1) Every person has a right to life. (2) The violinist is a person. (3) Therefore the violinist has a right to life. (C) It is impermissible to unplug the violinist. This is an analogy towards rape. The violinist is the baby and the music society is the
An AI, Portia fighting to have the rights of a human was in court yesterday. Representing her, a very well-known and an experienced Human Rights Lawyer, Kimiko Saunders. The Recovery Program, designed to recycle old AI’s were intent on taking Portia and recycling her but she had other plans. She believes that she is a human and is fighting to have the rights of a human. Beside her in court was a Human Rights Lawyer, Tara (the owner of the AI) and Sam (friend of Tara). The fierce court case lasted for three full days and as the days passed the battle of the opinions kept mounting until it met a conclusion, Judge Ironmonger declared the AI as Human.
It can be concluded that one would not kill an infant due to it lacking self-awareness, therefore Lee and George makes an effective point through the use of logic.
To start off with, Turkle vividly describes how robots are used as a substitute for other people or things and help imagine robots in every day life. My Real Baby was noted as an example, which quickly turned into My Real Babysitter. My Real Babysitter was an idea formed from the idea that children are left alone all too often and babysitters are sometimes hard to come by in cases of emergencies. This robotic babysitter would replace the human version, integrating itself into daily life. The children explained that there is only so much a robot babysitter would do and it wouldn’t create an even playing field between human and robotic babysitters. Turkle came to the conclusion that children with lively and creative babysitters would rather keep theirs and children with boring babysitters would prefer the robotic version. The AIBO, a robotic dog, was also used as an example in the novel. In the case of eight-year-old Zara, she says that with a teddy bear you have to put in the work to create the teddy bears thoughts and feeling, but, with the AIBO, it already thinks what it wants and is expressing. Also, if the robotic dog is bugging you, ...
Humans have distinct traits and features that make us who we are. Humans have the ability to express emotion and we have a conscious mind. In this day and age, technology is becoming more and more important in all fields of life. Robots, machines, and computers are all examples of technological advances being made. In the medical field machines and robots are now performing surgeries on patients. A ventilator is a machine that keeps a person alive by delivering oxygen to the lungs and the rest of the body. But, what classifies that machine as not being human? William James coined the term “Automatic Sweetheart”, meaning a soulless body devoid of a conscious. During James’s time of life words like robot were not used. James used the term of
“I argue that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity, which is the fundamental basis for membership in the moral community” (133). This is the central idea in Mary Anne Warren’s argument on the personhood of a fetus. She argues that in order for a genetic human being to be considered a person, he or she would have to possess all of the six criteria’s of personhood which include sentience, ability to reason and emotionality. In order to determine the viability of the personhood of a fetus she argues two things. Firstly, Warren argues that even on the surmise that a fetus has a strong right to life, abortion can still be seen as morally permissible. Warren demonstrates this by using Judith Johnson’s Violinist analogy, which asks the basic
In contrast, with the previous three articles which embody the development of robots as a useful tool for human growth, Headrick focus on the ethic and legal conflicts that will arise with the growth of robots. The creation of artificial intelligence in human lives will bring many unique situations. Headrick begins his article with an analogy of a driverless car in a parking lot. The car is programmed to go straight so it may not see certain things and react as quickly or effectively, to insure no lives are harmed. If a human were behind the wheel these situation would be unlikely to occur. With the spread of autonomous systems is it really beneficial to put the safety of humans in the hands of robots. Will our laziness to make our lives easier with lifeless objects jeopardized our existence. Headrick uses multiple Headrick points out real life situations where robots have jeopardized human livelihood. “The more we task robotics to act on our behalf," "one of the first questions is, 'who is responsible' in the moment of truth.… we don't have an answer for that yet” (Headrick 1). Who do we blame when the robots don’t function correct? Headrick provokes humans to think in an effective manner towards the growth of automated
The traditional notion that seeks to compare human minds, with all its intricacies and biochemical functions, to that of artificially programmed digital computers, is self-defeating and it should be discredited in dialogs regarding the theory of artificial intelligence. This traditional notion is akin to comparing, in crude terms, cars and aeroplanes or ice cream and cream cheese. Human mental states are caused by various behaviours of elements in the brain, and these behaviours in are adjudged by the biochemical composition of our brains, which are responsible for our thoughts and functions. When we discuss mental states of systems it is important to distinguish between human brains and that of any natural or artificial organisms which is said to have central processing systems (i.e. brains of chimpanzees, microchips etc.). Although various similarities may exist between those systems in terms of functions and behaviourism, the intrinsic intentionality within those systems differ extensively. Although it may not be possible to prove that whether or not mental states exist at all in systems other than our own, in this paper I will strive to present arguments that a machine that computes and responds to inputs does indeed have a state of mind, but one that does not necessarily result in a form of mentality. This paper will discuss how the states and intentionality of digital computers are different from the states of human brains and yet they are indeed states of a mind resulting from various functions in their central processing systems.
Robot ethics, or sometimes known by the expression of “roboethics”, concerns ethical problems that occur with robots, such as whether robots post a threat to humans in the long or short run. This could include in the jobs or the work that they can replace for humans. Robot ethics is a sub-field of ethics of technology, specifically information technology, and it has close links to legal as well as socio-economic concerns. Researchers from diverse areas are beginning to tackle ethical questions about creating robotic technology and implementing it in societies, in a way that will still ensure the safety of the human race. While the issues are as old as the word robot, serious academic discussions started around the year 2000. Robot ethics requires
Artificial Intelligence, also known as AI, allows a machine to function as if the machine has the capability to think like a human. While we are not expecting any hovering cars anytime soon, artificial intelligence is projected to have a major impact on the labor force and will likely replace about half the workforce in the United States in the decades to come. The research in artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly at an unstoppable rate. So while many people feel threatened by the possibility of a robot taking over their job, computer scientists actually propose that robots would benefit a country’s efficiency of production, allowing individuals to reap the benefits of the robots. For the advantage of all, researchers and analysts have begun to mend the past ideas of human-robot interaction. They have pulled inspiration from literary works of Isaac Asimov whom many saw as the first roboticist ahead of his time, and have also gotten ideas of scholarly research done by expert analysts. These efforts have began to create an idea of a work force where humans and robots work together in harmony, on a daily basis.
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence is a Steven Spielberg science fiction drama film, which conveys the story of a younger generation robot, David, who yearns for his human mother’s love. David’s character stimulates the mind-body question. What is the connection between our “minds” and our bodies?
I don’t think there is any reason for these robots to have every ability that a human does. There is no way they are going to have the intelligence a human does. Artificial Intelligence is just going to bring more harm into our communities. We can’t trust the robots doing the “everyday” human activities, they are going to lead to unemployment, and will lead to laziness causing more obesity.