dragonlady7 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dragonlady7) wrote2016-10-25 12:01 pm
dragonlady7) wrote2016-10-25 12:01 pm
"It’s not just kids that form surprising bonds
via http://ift.tt/2eNQrkZ:
“It’s not just kids that form surprising bonds with these bundles of wires and circuits. Some people give names to their Roomba vacuum cleaners, says Darling. And soldiers honour their robots with “medals” or hold funerals for them. She cites one particularly striking example of a military robot that was designed to defuse landmines by stepping on them. In a test, the explosions ripped off most of the robot’s legs, and yet the crippled machine continued to limp along. Watching the robot struggle, the colonel in charge called off the test because it was “inhumane”, according to the Washington Post.”
-
Is it OK to torture or murder a robot?
(via maskandmachete)
okay reblogging this thing again because I’ve had a thought now that I’ve read the article: The writer says re: animal cruelty laws, “It’s less about the animal’s experience and more about our own emotional pain.”
While this may be true in some respects, there is also the noted connection between animal abuse and violent behavior towards other humans. Someone who does not have the empathy that prevents us from hurting animals will likely not stop there.
The bounds of this expected empathy are a socially defined concept, yes, but that does not make them any less strong. If there is a more fundamental basis for empathy, I would be interested to learn about it, but at the moment I’m quite tired and will hold off on personal research.
In any case, I’m in favor of robot rights on principle, but this adds another underlying layer of logic: robot rights can also protect humans in the process.
(via moniquill)
I really appreciate the idea that protecting robot rights can protect humans both from empathetic suffering on the robots’ behalf, and also from the moral injury humans can incur by being allowed or even compelled to be cruel to robots.
“It’s not just kids that form surprising bonds with these bundles of wires and circuits. Some people give names to their Roomba vacuum cleaners, says Darling. And soldiers honour their robots with “medals” or hold funerals for them. She cites one particularly striking example of a military robot that was designed to defuse landmines by stepping on them. In a test, the explosions ripped off most of the robot’s legs, and yet the crippled machine continued to limp along. Watching the robot struggle, the colonel in charge called off the test because it was “inhumane”, according to the Washington Post.”
-
Is it OK to torture or murder a robot?
(via maskandmachete)
okay reblogging this thing again because I’ve had a thought now that I’ve read the article: The writer says re: animal cruelty laws, “It’s less about the animal’s experience and more about our own emotional pain.”
While this may be true in some respects, there is also the noted connection between animal abuse and violent behavior towards other humans. Someone who does not have the empathy that prevents us from hurting animals will likely not stop there.
The bounds of this expected empathy are a socially defined concept, yes, but that does not make them any less strong. If there is a more fundamental basis for empathy, I would be interested to learn about it, but at the moment I’m quite tired and will hold off on personal research.
In any case, I’m in favor of robot rights on principle, but this adds another underlying layer of logic: robot rights can also protect humans in the process.
(via moniquill)
I really appreciate the idea that protecting robot rights can protect humans both from empathetic suffering on the robots’ behalf, and also from the moral injury humans can incur by being allowed or even compelled to be cruel to robots.