Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-07T20:02:21.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Prototyping N-Reasons

A Computer Mediated Ethics Machine

from PART IV - APPROACHES TO MACHINE ETHICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

By
Peter Danielson
Edited by
Michael Anderson  and
Susan Leigh Anderson
Michael Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Hartford, Connecticut
Susan Leigh Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Much work in machine ethics attempts to implement ethical theory in autonomous, situated machines – robots. Our previous work in robot ethics falls at the extreme of very simple virtual agents programmed with moral strategies for simple games (Danielson 1992). Even at this extreme, ethics is surprisingly complex. Our later evolvable agents discovered some strategies unexplored by the rational choice ethics literature (Danielson 1996; Danielson 1998; Danielson 2002). Twenty years ago, Dennett was skeptical of this branch of machine ethics: “[N]o remotely compelling system of ethics has ever been made computationally tractable, even indirectly, for real-world moral problems” (Dennett 1989, p. 129). We leave this approach to other contributors in this collection.

In contrast, there is the branch of machine ethics that constructs machines to advise people making ethical decisions. Our present work falls here, or so we shall argue. We have developed an innovative survey research platform – N-Reasons – to explore robot ethics at the first level and machine ethics at the second. The question of interest for this volume is if the N-Reasons platform can be usefully seen as a machine.

This contrast is interesting in another way relevant to our project. Working on Artificial Morality, the skeptical question I most often faced was, “How could a machine be moral?” The emerging technology of robotics, however, has caught up with some of this skepticism.

Type
Chapter
Information
Machine Ethics , pp. 442 - 450
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmad, R., Bailey, J., & Danielson, P. (2008). Analysis of an Innovative Survey Platform: Comparison of the Public's Responses to Human Health and Salmon Genomics Surveys. Public Understanding of Science, 0963662508091806.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2008). The Long Tail (Rev. and updated ed.). New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
Danielson, P. (1992). Artificial Morality: Virtuous Robots for Virtual Games. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Danielson, P. (1996). Evolving Artificial Moralities: Genetic Strategies, Spontaneous Orders, and Moral Catastrophe. In Albert, A. (Ed.), Chaos and Society 18 (pp. 329–344). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Danielson, P. (1998). Evolutionary Models of Cooperative Mechanisms: Artificial Morality and Genetic Programming. In Danielson, P. (Ed.), Modeling Rationality, Morality, and Evolution 7 (pp. 423–441). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Danielson, P. (2002). Competition among Cooperators: Altruism and Reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 7237–7242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danielson, P. (2006). From Artificial Morality to NERD: Models, Experiments, & Robust Reflective Equilibrium. Paper presented at the Artificial Life 10: Achievements and Future Challenges for Artificial Life, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Danielson, P. (2010a). A Collaborative Platform for Experiments in Ethics and Technology. In I. v. d. Poel, D. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and Engineering: an Emerging Agenda (pp. 239–252). Springer.Google Scholar
Danielson, P. A. (2010b). Designing a Machine to Learn about the Ethics of Robotics: the N-Reasons Platform. Ethics and Information Technology, Special Issue on Robot Ethics and Human Ethics, 10(3), 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, P. A. (in press). N-Reasons: Computer Mediated Ethical Decision Support for Public Participation. In E. Einsiedel & K. O'Doherty (Eds.), Publics & Emerging Technologies: Cultures, Contexts, and Challenges.
Danielson, P., Ahmad, R., Bornik, Z., Dowlatabadi, H., & Levy, E. (2007). Deep, Cheap, and Improvable: Dynamic Democratic Norms and the Ethics of Biotechnology. In Adams, F. (Ed.), Ethics and the Life Sciences (pp. 315–326). Charlottesville, Va.: Philosophy Documentation Center.Google Scholar
Danielson, P., Longstaff, H., Ahmad, R., Loos, H. F. M., Mitchell, I. M., Oishi, M. M. K. et al. (2010). Case Study: An Assistive Technology Ethics Survey. In Oishi, M. M. K., Mitchell, I. M., & Loos, H. F. M. (Eds.), Design and Use of Assistive Technology: Social, Technical, Ethical, and Economic Challenges (pp. 75–93). Springer.Google Scholar
Danielson, P., Mesoudi, A., & Stanev, R. (2008). NERD and Norms: Framework and Experiments. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 830–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1989). The Moral First Aid Manual. In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Tanner Lectures in Human Values) V. 8 (pp. 121–147). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1951). Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics. The Philosophical Review, 60(2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammen, M. (1987). A Machine That Would Go of Itself: The Constitution in American Culture. Vintage.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search. Commun. ACM, 19(3), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormandy, E., Schuppli, C., & Weary, D. (2008). Changing Patterns in the Use of Research Animals versus Public Attitudes: Potential Conflict. Paper presented at the Genome Canada International Symposium, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin (Non-Classics).Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1968). Leviathan or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. London: Penguin books.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×