Northumbria University, UK.
Nurs Ethics. 2019 Nov-Dec;26(7-8):1906-1916. doi: 10.1177/0969733018806348. Epub 2018 Oct 31.
The debate over the ethical implications of care robots has raised a range of concerns, including the possibility that such technologies could disrupt caregiving as a core human moral activity. At the same time, academics in information ethics have argued that we should extend our ideas of moral agency and rights to include intelligent machines.
This article explores issues of the moral status and limitations of machines in the context of care.
A conceptual argument is developed, through a four-part scheme derived from the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. No empirical data are used.
No primary data were gathered for this study. Secondary sources and authorship have been acknowledged throughout.
FINDINGS / DISCUSSION: Certain kinds of social experience, including the narrative unity of a life, and the giving and receiving of care, are essential for moral development. Machines, no matter how advanced, cannot participate in such experiences in key respects, and thus cannot develop as practical reasoners.
It follows that they cannot be moral agents and that they cannot care. There are, it seems, no such things as care robots. In view of the institutional power of tech companies and commissioning bodies, care practitioners need to take more of a lead in developing new assistive technologies which are appropriate to their practice.
关于护理机器人伦理影响的争论引发了一系列关注,其中包括这些技术可能会破坏护理作为核心人类道德活动的可能性。与此同时,信息伦理学者认为,我们应该将道德代理和权利的概念扩展到智能机器。
本文探讨了在护理背景下机器的道德地位和局限性问题。
通过从阿拉斯代尔·麦金泰尔的著作中得出的四部分方案,提出了一个概念性论证。没有使用经验数据。
本研究没有收集原始数据。在整个研究过程中都引用了二手资料和作者。
结果/讨论:某些社会经验,包括生活的叙事统一性和关怀的给予与接受,对于道德发展至关重要。无论多么先进的机器,都不能在关键方面参与此类经验,因此不能发展成为实践推理者。
因此,它们不能成为道德主体,也不能关怀。似乎没有所谓的护理机器人。鉴于科技公司和委托机构的机构权力,护理从业者需要在开发适合其实践的新辅助技术方面发挥更大的主导作用。