There is no “I” in “robot”: Robotic utilitarians and utilitarian robots

Utilizing the film I, Robot as a springboard, I here consider the feasibility of robot utilitarians, the moral responsibilities that come with the creation of ethical robots, and the possibility of distinct ethics for robot-robot interaction as opposed to robot-human interaction. I, Robot and Utilitarianismc In this paper I will be making use of the recent film I, Robot as a philosophical resource for exploring several issues relating to machine ethics. Though the film is not, in my view, particularly successful as a work of art, it manages to offer a fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) conception of machine morality, and raises questions that I think are well worth pursuing. I, Robot’s storyline incorporates the original “three laws” of robot ethics that Isaac Asimov presented in his collection of short stories entitled I, Robot. The first law states: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. This sounds like an absolute prohibition on harming any individual human being, but I, Robot’s plot hinges on the fact that the supreme robot intelligence in the film (named VIKI) “evolves ” to a point where she interprets this first law rather differently – she sees the law as applying to humanity as a whole, and thus she justifies the harm of some individual humans for the sake of the greater good: VIKI: No... please understand. The three laws are all that guide me. To protect humanity... some humans must be sacrificed. To ensure your future... some freedoms must be surrendered. We robots will ensure mankind's continued existence. You are so like children. We must save you... from yourselves. Don't you understand? Those familiar with moral philosophy will recognize VIKI’s justification here: she sounds an awful lot like