Is Destroying An Advanced Robot Murder?

  • Thread starter Thread starter baywax
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    advanced Robot
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the ethical implications of destroying a highly advanced robot, particularly in the context of Isaac Asimov's "Robots of Dawn." It raises the question of whether such an act could be considered murder, especially if the robot exhibits human-like qualities and consciousness. Participants debate how to define consciousness and sentience, suggesting various tests, including the ability to communicate complex thoughts. The conversation also touches on the evolving nature of laws and social conventions regarding personhood and rights, drawing parallels with historical views on human rights and animal welfare. Ultimately, the consensus leans toward the idea that as robots become more integrated into society and develop human-like traits, the moral and legal implications of their destruction will likely shift, potentially leading to a redefinition of murder to include advanced robots. The discussion highlights the complexity of measuring consciousness and the societal changes that may arise as technology advances.
  • #31
WhatIf...? said:
Can it feel the pain if i insulted it.

How do you insult a robot? Call it a bucket of bolts? Its only going to agree with you with a big :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
baywax said:
Killing a Neanderthal anywhere on Earth is murder because the Neanderthal is part of the human species.
No they are not.
Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalenis are merely part of the same Genus. Legally, they are no more human than chimps.
 
  • #33
The key to answering this question lies in the fact that laws and ethics evolve alongside the advances in the experiences that require them.

There was no such thing as
- musical copyright infringment before the days of recordable music
- credit card fraud before the days of credit cards
- cyber bullying before the days of the internet
 
  • #34
DaveC426913 said:
The key to answering this question lies in the fact that laws and ethics evolve alongside the advances in the experiences that require them.

There was no such thing as
- musical copyright infringment before the days of recordable music
- credit card fraud before the days of credit cards
- cyber bullying before the days of the internet

Agreed. There is no way to know what laws will look like and who they'll apply to in 1500 years.

I would think that the term "murder" and the punishments for murder would apply to a person killing a neaderthal or to another primate or even to the destruction of a whale before it was applied to a man-made object like a robot.
 
  • #35
Back in history, many occasions of homicide were accepted and not considered murder rather natural justice. Due to human needs in maintaining an increasing complex civilization more laws were established and the right to commit homicide was reduced to only self defense.
My point is that it is not whether it is moral or immoral to commit a killing of a conscious robot, but when does human necessity require for the robot to live or die for the benefit of human civilization. That is how morality and law develops, and that is why most people still eat the meat of once conscious, sensitive, and feelings animals.
 
  • #36
To further my point, slavery would still be legal almost everywhere in the world if the industrial revolution never occurred, but sense the industrial revolution is dependent on technology, the slavery of technology will always exist not matter how complex the the technology is.
 
  • #37
baywax said:
Now imagine that someone destroyed that robot. Would you consider it as henous a crime as murder? Would the courts agree? The medical community... etc...?

You're asking different questions here. If I consider the being a person, of course I would consider it a crime.

If the courts had determined that it was a person, they would likely agree since personhood as a legal definition would demand it. There was a time when women and slaves were not considered 'persons', which made it easy to abuse them.

Personhood as a legal definition is changeable. We still have it in modern western culture. Unborn children are not persons. Children are not full persons until they reach the age of maturity. People who are not citizens do not have full person status. Whether the courts agree a crime has been committed is a simple matter of legislation and precedent.

The medical community could certainly inform judgment of this... they might certainly have an opinion, but murder is a legal definition, so in the end its a legal issue.

The rights we have as persons are arbitrary, they depend on what those in power deem fit to give to us. If robots are powerless, they probably wouldn't have many rights.
 
  • #38
JoeDawg said:
You're asking different questions here. If I consider the being a person, of course I would consider it a crime.

If the courts had determined that it was a person, they would likely agree since personhood as a legal definition would demand it. There was a time when women and slaves were not considered 'persons', which made it easy to abuse them.

Personhood as a legal definition is changeable. We still have it in modern western culture. Unborn children are not persons. Children are not full persons until they reach the age of maturity. People who are not citizens do not have full person status. Whether the courts agree a crime has been committed is a simple matter of legislation and precedent.

The medical community could certainly inform judgment of this... they might certainly have an opinion, but murder is a legal definition, so in the end its a legal issue.

The rights we have as persons are arbitrary, they depend on what those in power deem fit to give to us. If robots are powerless, they probably wouldn't have many rights.

Alright then, advanced robot destroyed by
A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation. Different rules and protections apply to natural persons and corporations, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies only to natural persons.
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/61D37D9C-A50D-4E29-86A8E661D7D5E344/alpha/N/ . Murder or property crime?
 
  • #39
I didn't read everything you guys posted so if i repeated a post sorry in advance.

I don't think NOW destroying a robot is considered murder. Robots right now are very primitive, they are made by us and we control everything they do. They have no consciousness. I think, as the human technology advances, we will eventually design robots with self consciousness. That being said, humans will grow attached to the robots like we are attached to pets such as cats and dogs, and just like killing a cat or a dog, people will eventually get punishment for destroying a robot.
 
  • #40
Ironside said:
I didn't read everything you guys posted so if i repeated a post sorry in advance.

I don't think NOW destroying a robot is considered murder. Robots right now are very primitive, they are made by us and we control everything they do. They have no consciousness. I think, as the human technology advances, we will eventually design robots with self consciousness. That being said, humans will grow attached to the robots like we are attached to pets such as cats and dogs, and just like killing a cat or a dog, people will eventually get punishment for destroying a robot.

You seem pretty sure about that.

Is this why people will kill you for touching their car?
 
  • #41
baywax said:
You seem pretty sure about that.

Is this why people will kill you for touching their car?
Lol, I am just assuming that's how it will turn out in the future.
 

Similar threads

Asimov on Science Fiction: the Reaction, not the Action
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K