IDea_Lab, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Digital Society Initiative, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Oct 17;30(6):51. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00509-w.
Danaher (2016) has argued that increasing robotization can lead to retribution gaps: Situations in which the normative fact that nobody can be justly held responsible for a harmful outcome stands in conflict with our retributivist moral dispositions. In this paper, we report a cross-cultural empirical study based on Sparrow's (2007) famous example of an autonomous weapon system committing a war crime, which was conducted with participants from the US, Japan and Germany. We find that (1) people manifest a considerable willingness to hold autonomous systems morally responsible, (2) partially exculpate human agents when interacting with such systems, and that more generally (3) the possibility of normative responsibility gaps is indeed at odds with people's pronounced retributivist inclinations. We discuss what these results mean for potential implications of the retribution gap and other positions in the responsibility gap literature.
达纳赫(2016)认为,机器人化程度的提高可能会导致报应差距:在这种情况下,没有人应该对有害结果负责这一规范事实与我们的报应主义道德倾向相冲突。在本文中,我们报告了一项基于斯帕罗(2007)著名的自主武器系统犯下战争罪的例子的跨文化实证研究,该研究在美国、日本和德国进行,参与者参与了研究。我们发现:(1)人们表现出相当大的意愿对自主系统承担道德责任;(2)在与这种系统互动时,部分减轻人类代理人的责任;(3)更普遍地说,规范责任差距的可能性确实与人们明显的报应主义倾向相悖。我们讨论了这些结果对报应差距和责任差距文献中其他立场的潜在影响意味着什么。