Robot rights

WND ^ | December 12, 2007 | Benjamin Shapiro

[Dan Evans]

Do robots deserve rights? The question is less ridiculous than it sounds. As scientists develop ever more sophisticated robots, we are faced with an ethical dilemma: When does artificial intelligence demand humane treatment?

In the last month, Japanese scientists have unveiled robots capable of serving food and even playing the violin and trumpet. These aren't self-aware robots – many scientists deride the notion of ever creating a robot capable of self-awareness – but self-awareness isn't the sole qualifier for rights. Certain severely brain-damaged human beings and newborns lack general self-awareness, but there is little doubt that they have rights, no matter what "ethicist" Peter Singer says.

....

At the most basic level, there is only one element separating human beings from robots: the soul. ...

When the atheist speaks of human rights, therefore, he cannot speak of rights unique to human beings – he must speak of rights that extend to animals or even robots.

...

Human beings have responsibilities because they have Godly souls. Robots do not have souls – they can never transcend their programming. Animals do not have souls – they cannot transcend their programming. The sanctity of human life is based on its unique status. Without the soul, the human being is a complex machine, no more sanctified than a tree or a squirrel or a robot.

... The sanctity of human life is based on its unique status. Without the soul, the human being is a complex machine, no more sanctified than a tree or a squirrel or a robot. There can be no high ideals in a soulless world.

Why worry about murder when every human being is as banal as a pocket calculator? Why worry about human rights when humans don't deserve special rights?

[UCANSEE2]

Merry Christmas Everyone!!!!

I, Robot.

http://movie6.net/?p=91

[RightWhale]

In general the concept of rights has not been successfully defined, not even in law. It’s fine to talk about rights, but realize that nobody knows the rules of the game.

[SampleMan]

The point is not to protect soulless things, but to prevent feeding raw meat to those with violent appetites, even if it is imaginary.

I get your drift now. For example a sexual act on a robot appearing to look and act like a 10 year old girl. Although I see the logic of your position, a prohibition would make fare more sense to me than robot rights.

[timm22]

What an interesting topic.

I would support giving rights to an intelligent machine capable of making moral decisions, harboring desires, and shaping its own identity...if such a machine could be constructed.

I don't think a machine like that could ever be made, but then again I'm not very educated in computer science. Of course, the best minds in human history have been wrong when it comes to predicting the bounds of human achievement.