Mushiaki Shigeru
J Int Bioethique. 2013 Dec;24(4):17-26, 176-7. doi: 10.3917/jib.243.0015.
Is "roboethics" the "ethics of humans" or the "ethics of robots"? According to the Roboethics Roadmap (Gianmarco Veruggio), it is the human ethics of robot designers, manufacturers, and users. And ifroboethics roots deeply in society, artificial ethics (ethics of robots) might be put on the agenda some day. At the 1st International Symposium on Roboethics in San Remo, Ronald C. Arkin gave the presentation "Bombs, Bonding, and Bondage: Human-Robot Interaction and Related Ethical Issues" (2004). "Bondage" is the issue of enslavement and possible rebellion of robots. "Bombs" is the issue of military use of robots. And "bonding" is the issue of affective, emotional attachment of humans to robots. I contrast two extreme attitudes towards the issue of "bonding" and propose a middle ground. "Anthropomorphism" has two meanings. First, it means "human-shaped-ness." Second, it means "attribution of human characteristics or feelings to a nonhuman being (god, animal, or object)" (personification, empathy). Some say that Japanese (or East Asians) hold "animism," which makes it easy for them to treat robots like animated beings (to anthropomorphize robots); hence "Robot Kingdom Japan." Cosima Wagner criticizes such exaggeration and oversimplification as "invented tradition". I reinforce her argument with neuroscientific findings and argue that such "animism" is neither Shintoistic nor Buddhistic, but a universal tendency. Roboticists, especially Japanese roboticists emphasize that robotics is "anthropology." It is true that through the construction of humanoid robots we can better understand human beings (so-called "constructive approach"). But at the same time, we must not forget that robotic technology, like any other technology, changes our way of living and being--deeply: it can bring about our ontological transformation. In this sense, the governance of robotic technology is "governed governance." The interdisciplinary research area of technology assessment studies (TAS) will gain much importance. And we should always be ready to rethink the direction of the research and development of robotic technology, bearing the desirable future of human society in mind.
“机器伦理”是“人类的伦理”还是“机器人的伦理”?根据《机器伦理路线图》(詹马尔科·韦鲁乔)的说法,它是机器人设计者、制造者及使用者的人类伦理。如果机器伦理在社会中深深扎根,那么人工伦理(机器人的伦理)也许有朝一日会被提上议程。在圣雷莫举行的第一届机器伦理国际研讨会上,罗纳德·C·阿金发表了题为《炸弹、联系与束缚:人机交互及相关伦理问题》(2004年)的演讲。“束缚”是机器人被奴役及可能出现反抗的问题。“炸弹”是机器人的军事用途问题。而“联系”是人类对机器人产生情感、情绪依恋的问题。我对比了对“联系”问题的两种极端态度并提出了一种折中的观点。“拟人化”有两个含义。其一,它指“人形”。其二,它指“将人类特征或情感赋予非人类存在(神、动物或物体)”(人格化、移情)。有人说日本人(或东亚人)秉持“泛灵论”,这使得他们容易将机器人当作有生命的存在来对待(将机器人拟人化);因此有了“日本机器人王国”的说法。科西玛·瓦格纳批评这种夸张和过度简化是“虚构的传统”。我用神经科学研究结果强化了她的观点,并指出这种“泛灵论”既非神道教的也非佛教的,而是一种普遍趋势。机器人专家,尤其是日本的机器人专家强调机器人技术是“人类学”。的确,通过构建类人机器人我们能更好地理解人类(即所谓的“建构性方法”)。但与此同时,我们绝不能忘记,机器人技术和其他任何技术一样,会深刻地改变我们的生活方式和生存方式:它会带来我们本体论上的转变。从这个意义上说,对机器人技术的治理是“受治理的治理”。技术评估研究(TAS)这个跨学科研究领域将变得极为重要。而且我们应该始终准备好重新思考机器人技术的研发方向,牢记人类社会美好的未来。