ij ~ ij ~ ij b q b

~0 0 " ) )

THE ETHICAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ROBOTICS

EDITED BY

Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George A. Bekey

Singl'r. f'. \.\ . 2009 h'iml fur IV.1r. Tire Rolxmn Rn.'Oiutum 11ml C<mtlir t ill tilt 2 h t 1 'Ill""' York. Penguin (.roup. .,.

L 'I Dl'p.trtmt•nt of Defense 2009 FY2009-20.t-l Umrlrl/1111'.1 Sntl'lm lntc ,., 11 1 • · ' ' lr R~l \.\a~htngl<ln, DC: Department of Defense. 'I!Qp

\'l'r~hJO, Donna \fanl' 2001 Just sar no! The SlrUS Project· Well·tntentionl.:'d , hut unntc and \Upcrtluous. ,1ir Fora• Lan Rt'\'i~ 21 (Spring): 224-225 es~

Wallad1, Wendell , and Cohn \lien. 2009 . . \1<1rrrl \f<11 llilll'~: Featl1i11g Ru/J<lh Ri,~llt I ram 1\'run YorJ..: <hlord Untvl'r\il} Pres\ g, ~~

A sody to Kick, but Still No Soul to Damn: Legal Perspectives 11 ,..

on Robotics

,.- r.1. ASaro

1be continued advancement of robotic technologies has already begun to present OOftl questions of social and moral responsibility. While the overall aim of this col­l«tlon is to consider the ethical and social issues raised by robotics, this chapter will rocuson the legal issues raised by robotics. It starts from the assumption that we might better understand the social and moral Issues surrounding robotics through an explo­ration of how the law might approach these issues. While it is acknowledged that there are instances where what is legal is not necessaril} morally esteemed, and what is morally required may not be legal, in general, there is a significant overlap between what Is legal and what is moral. Indeed, many of the crudal concepts are shared, and as such this chapter will explore how the law views responsibility, culpability, causal­Ity, intentionality, autonomy, and agency. As a philosopher, rather than a lawyer or lepl scholar, my concern will be with these theoretical concepts, and how their jus­lllic:atory frameworks can be used to interpret and apply law to the new kinds of cases, wbk:h teleoperated, semi-autonomous, and fully autonomous robotics have already, ~may soon, present. Insofar as some of 1 he issues will also involve matters of industry lad community standards, public opi nions, and beliefs, as well as social values and Pllblic morals, the chapter will consider questions of value. While my concern will be Pdmarily with the law as it is typically understood and applied in the United States, ~~lm is that these reflections will also prove useful to scholars and lawyers of other ""&'& traditions. nt lndee<.l, the legal issues raised by robotic technologies touch on a number of sig­ca:cant fundamental issues across far-ranging areas of law. In each of these areas, there fObo ~found existi ng legal precedents and frameworks which either directly apply to be hcs cases, or which might be extended and interpreted in various ways so as to Prtn rn~de applicable. My aim is to consider each in turn, as well as to identify the tnd Clples that might underlie a coherent legal understanding of the development llligb use of robotic systems. ~urthermore, I will consider the means by which we be ht judge the potential of robots to have a legal standing of their own. It will thus

elpful to organi1e the discussion in terms of both the salient types of

170

robots-teleoperated, semi-autonomous and autonomous-as well , a\ the areas of law, criminal and civil. 1 Pt1nc1

The most obvious issues that arise for the application of the Ia~, 1 o robot from the challenge that these complex computational systems po•u 1

1~ 1 ~" o our tt .

notions of intentionality, as well as how and whom to punish fo aduJ, r wron fu

(Bechtel 1985; Moon and Nas~ 1998). Most of the scholarship on law d g I a... an ro~>o '""'-~

date has focused on treating robots as manufactured products (A'>aro 200

tiC\

Schaerer, Kelley, and Nicolescu 2009), subject to civil liability, or on whethe~· ~ can themselves become criminally liable (Dennett 1997· Asaro 2007) or th ro~Joq

- . , • e challe robotic teleoperat10n poses to legal jurisdiction (Asaro 201 1 ). 1 will begin b ~·&e~ - th · 1 f Y con51.t.... mg e more stratg 1t orward cases of semi-autonomous robots, whilh can be "'<~' much like other commercial products For these cases the Jaw has a high! d tHa~

f . . · ' Y evetol'Eil set o precedents and pnnc1ples from the area of law known as proti11U liabilities

1,.

can be applied. ' hldJ

1_ will then consider the implications of increasingly autonmnou\ robots, WhidJ ~egm to approach more sophisticated and human-like performances. At some point m the future, there may be good reasons to consider holding such robots to st<Jndards of criminal or civil liability for their actions, as well as compelling reasons to hold

their owners and users to higher, or lower, standards of responsibility for the wrongd(). ings of their robots. These considerations will draw upon a variety of legal areas W1th

similar structures of distributing intention, action, autonomy, and agency. Theree\1'' certain similarities between such robots and their owners and controllers, and tt. ways in which individuals have traditionally been held to account for the wrongdo­ings of other subordinate intelligent, sentient, conscious, autonomous, and sem~ autonomous agents. Examples include laws pertaining to the assignment o· responsibility between animals and their owners, employees and their bosses, sold1e·~ and their commanders, and slaves and their masters as well as a~mcy law in wh1L'h agents are entrusted with even greater levels of res~onsibility th,an is the' case Wllll

typical subordinates. There are also issues involving whether robots themsel\'es ,Jt

entitled to legal stand ing, redress, or even rights, including the ability to sign coo­tracts, be subject to criminal liabilities, or the means by which the)' might be justly subjected to punishment for crimes. This will bring us to consider the punishrncot~ against o ther kinds of nonhuman legal agents, namely corporations, and what call t,e

learned about robot punishments from corporate punishments.

11.1 Robots and Product liability

'~reJ Many of the most common potential harms posed by robotic system~ will be co the!' by civil laws governing product liability. That is, we can treat robot\ a' we do 0

1to

technological artifacts-such as toys, weapons, cars, or airliners-and e:-.pcl.'t tnell

171

e al and moral issues in their production and use. In fact, the companies r I g b- d I' b'l' d t . " manufacture robots are already su teet to pro uct 1a 1 tty, an re am

ntl. are paid to advise them on their legal responsibiUties in producing,

wh:nd selling these robots to the general public. Most of the public's current

~b<JUI the possible harms that robots might cause would ultimately fall under

rpretation such as a robotic lawnmower that runs over someone's foot, --.:.....a~ lnte ' ~-driving car that causes a traffic accident. . . . z

be helpful at this point to review the basic elements of product llab1hty law. for example, a toy robot that shoots small foam projectiles. If that toy were

'several children to choke to death, the manufacturer might be held liable

ciVil taw, and be compelled to pay damages to the families that los_t child~en of the toy. If it can be proven in court that the company was neglrgent, wah

IIIIIJIIllll!to the defects, risks, and potential hazards arising from the use of their product, :tile company could also be criminally, as well as civilly, liable for the dan1ages

(JIIIClto victims by their product. Legal liabili.ty due to negligence in ~roduct I.iability _.depends on either (ail11res to warn, or farlllres to take proper care 10 assessmg t~e

~risks a product poses. A failure to warn oc:urs when the _manufactu~cr ~a1ls iltlfy consumers of a foreseeable risk, such as usmg an otherwtse safe devtce 10 a

...-r that presents a potential fo r harm. For example, many power tools display 1IIIJID8s to operators to use eye protection or safety guards, which can greatly reduce 1111!1J1b of using the device. The legal standard motivates manufacturers to put such 1IIIIDg labels on their products, and, in the preceding example, the manufacturer 11fjt avoid liability by putting a label on the package, stating that the robot toy

~parts that are a choking hazard to young children . .failure to take proper care is more difficult to characterize. The idea is that the

llllllfacturcr failed to foresee a risk, which, if they had taken proper care, they would likely foreseen. This counterfactual notion is typically measured against a some­Yague community standard of reason, or an industry standard of practice, about

What proper care is expected among similar companies for similar products. In ._tense, the more obvious the risk is, according to such a standard, the more likely

the negligence involved rises to the level of criminality. 1be P<>tential failure to take proper care, and the reciprocal responsibility to take

Plllpercare, is perhaps the central issue in practical robot ethics from a design perspec­

....._What constitutes proper care, and what risks might be foreseeable, or in principle ~~.:seeable, is a deep and vexing problem. This is due to the inherent complexity ~pating potential future interactions, and the relative autonomy of a robotic

'-ay once it is produced. It is likely to be very difficult or impossible to foresee ~ of the risks posed by sophisticated robots that will be capable of interacting

People and the world in highly complex ways-and may even develop and learn \Vays of acting that extend beyond their initial design. Robot ethics shares this

r

172

problem with bioengineering eth ics-both the difficulty in predicting tlw 1 . Utur~t act1ons ot a product when the full scope of possible interactions can ,11 h<:st II

e!>tlmatcd, and an producing a product that is an intrinsically d)•namv d Only . . ' <lfl E:\

S}Stern, whose behav1or may not be eas1ly controlled after it has bel·n JlrOdu Oh relea~ed anto the world (Mitcham 1990). led

A classic defense against charges of failures to warn and fatlurc\ to take ProPer

IS the tndustry standard defense. The basic argument of the indu\try \t,tndard de! IS that the manufacturer acted in accordance with the stated or umtatt·d st

. andards the 1ndmtry they arc participating m. Thus, they were merel} doing \'hat other manufacturers were doing, and were taking proper care as rnea\tHt·d aga ~

IO~t t peers. 1 h1s appeal to a relative measure again points to the vaguenes'l ot the Cl

of proper care, and the inherent difficulty of determining what sr>cuh{ and ~ ' PWCIJC'II

legal and moral dutie~ follow from the obllgation to take proper car~ I'h· . " \ague

concept also fails to tell us what sorts of practices ~lumltl be followed 111 the desiRnot robots. An obviou~ role for robot ethics should be to seek to cstabli\h standard~ 1 the robot industry, which will ensure that the relevant forms of proper care are tak and I believe this should be one of the primary goals for future robot ethics re\tar:

If the company In question willfully sought to remain ignorant of the mks it!

robotic products might pose, such as by refusing to test a product or ignoring warn­ings from designers, then its negligence could also be deemed crirnmal. This would be a case of mens rea, in which the culpable state of mind is one of ignorance, eithe willfully or unreasonably. That is, if the risks posed are so obv1ous that they wouldbt recognized by anyone taking the time to consider them, or knowledge of the risk~ had to be actively avoided, then that ignorance is criminal. Beyond that, 1f it can be shown that the manufacturer was actually aware of the risk, then this amount'> to m:k/rw:tSl­Reckless endangerment requires a mental state of foreseeing ri~kc; or po~c;1ble dang n. whether to specific individuals or an uncertain public, though not c>.phcitly inten~ that any potential victims actually be harmed.3 In some cases, rccklc,~ne~s can a be proved by showing that a "reasonable person" should have forcwl'n the rl involved, even if it cannot be proven that the defendant actually had foreseen tht risks. An even more severely culpable ~tate of mind would be if the compan)' ,old tht dangerous toys kiiOWillsly, in awarenes~ of the fact that they would t'ause datnJ~ even though they did not intend the damages. And the most severe form of culpa 11•

liability is that of having the mental intention to cause the harm, or otherwi~t:tr posely causing harms. While these are all cases of criminal liabilitv. J~ we will ~eC': l!f · di · f · - 1 " settl~ Ill our scuss1on o corporate punishment, such cases are almmt ,, w.l\ ~ 11130

d. i . d . . ratll~r awar mg pun t1ve monetary amages to v1ct1ms and their legal adv()l,ltl''· penalties owed to the ~ta te, such as imprisoning the guiltv partie' rtiolle(l.

Another intert.>sting aspect of liability is that il can be diffcrt•ntl.lfl\ ,,ppO otller ttle an

That IS to sa}. for example, one part\- might be 10 percent resp<m\1hl' . '' 1

173

nt responsible for some harmful event. lhis kind of analysis of the causal pttCf Jting in harm~ is not uncommon in cases involving traffic accidents, air­

,esu and product liability. In many jurisdictions, there are laws that separate she~. . .. at "ausal responsibility from the consequent legal hab1hty. Among these are

tt \ng joint ami ~t"l'eml Jiabilit)', which holds all parties equaJly resp~ns~bl~ ~or ~ton, even if they are not equally responsible for the harm, or strict ltablilty,

~sa hold a party full) respomible for compensation. These liability structures ~to ensure that justiCe i~ done, in that the wronged individual is made whole

_.n "ly) b) holding those most able to compensate them fully liable for paying ~damages, even when they are not fully responsible for causing the harm. ~ItS~, these cases still recognize that va rious factors and parties contribute dif-

_..ny to causing some event. . . . ~~Jerential apportionment could prove to be a useful tool when cons1denn~ 1ssues safJOt ethics. For instance, a badly designed object recognlllon program mtght be

~~f~DS~ble for some damage caused by a robot, but a bad camera could also contrib-• could a weak battery, or a malfunctioning actuator, and so on. This implies

..,.meers need to think carefully about how the subsystem they are working on Jnteract wilh other subsystems-whether as designed or in partial breakdown

IIIJ.IIDPs-in potentially harmful ways. That, in turn, would suggest that systems ~g approaches that can manage these complex interactions would become 'q"J2ngly important for consumer robotics. It also means that manufacturers will

ensure the quality of the components they use, including software, test the which components interact with each other, as well as prescribe appropriate

•• aance regimes to ensure the proper functioning of those components. This is of complex and potentially dangerous systems, such as in airliners and indus-

lliltabots. and may prove necessary for many consumer robots, as well. is, however, a limit to what robot manufacturers, engineers, and designers

to limit the potential uses of, and harms caused by, their products. This is other parties, namely the consumers and users of robots, will choose to do

SOrts of things with them and will have to assume the responsibility for those For instance, when one uses a product in a manner wholly unintended by its

~and manufacturers, such as using a tent as a parachute, we no longer hold ~ufacturer liable for the harms that result. Schaerer, Kelley, and Nicolescu

argue that users should be held liable only in those cases in which it can be that they acted with harmful intentions. I disagree with this argument because

Intrinsic fiexlbility of design inherent In the programmability of robots. Typically, Dot hold manufacturers re!>pOnl.ible when the hardware has been tampered with

modified, or when the hardware is running software developed by users Party, even when there is no malice involved. We also do not always hold

that develops a piece of software re!>ponsible when it turns out to be

= 174

vulnerable to a mahciou~ third party, such as a hacker or \'irus. Again, thl OJII:r legal considerations are causal responsibilitv and culpable intent. However

10 ilth

ma, u. factoring a product that ts programmable, and thus wildly customizable, a great of responsibility lies in the hands of those who do the programming, as wcll il\ tldt'a) who use the robot by giving it various commands.

101t

The challenge presented by programmable general-purpose robots is that it is unr sonable to expect their manufacturers to anticipate all the things their robot\ llli ~:+ be programmed to do or asked to do, and thus unreasonable to hold them habl ghr

1

e or those things. At least, the less foreseeable the uses, the less responsible the manur ac. turer might be. But there is no clear and definitive line here. t\t one extreme areca~ where the manufacturer ought to be held liable, and at the other extreme ~.:ascs Where the programmer or user ought to be held liable. At one extreme, we would find the narrowly specified applications of the robots for which its manufacturer<, intended th product to be used. At the other extreme, we might find a highly original custom applicalion or program, which perhaps only that particular programmer or user might have dreamt up.

Like built-in programming, the context in which the robot has been placed and

the instructions given to it by its owners may also be the determining, or contributtng. causes of some harm, where the robot is the proximate cause. Orders and operator commands are like programming, in some sense, and as natural language processmg grows more sophisticated, the two may become increasingly indistinguishable. -\nd

even a well-programmed robot can be ordered to do things that might unintentional!\ cause harms In certain situations. In short, there will always be risks inheren t In tht use of robots, and at some point the users will be judged to have knowingly assumed these risks in the very act of choosing to use a robot. Properly assessing rcsponstbilit\ in liability cases will be difficult and contested, and will depend on decisions in futt• cases that establish various legal precedents for interpreting such cases.

It also seems likely that robotic technologies will advance much like computer technologies, in that hackers and amateur enthusiast~ will push the envelope of capa· bilities of new devices as much as commercial manufacturers do, especiall} in terms of the software and programming of robots. Lven !Robot's mild-mannered Roomt>a vacuum-cleaning robot ha~ a fully programmable version called Create (iRoiJOt.corn 2010), and hackerl> have created their own software development kits CSDKS) to cu:~ tomize the Roomba robot as they see fit, though at their own liability (Kurt z006>~Jil· long as these robotic products have enough safe and legitimate uses. it would be tur· ficult to prohibit or regulate them, just as it would be difficult to hold the m.u~ufac30~ ers responsible for any creati\e, even if dangerou), uses of their produl"h· < ars ...,

d tO.,.. guns are also verv dangcrou~ consumer product\, but it is the users who ten ~ held liable for most of tlw harms they cau~c. not the manufacturers, bl'l ul\l' the 011

. . ~lU) of those potentially dangerous products place addttwnal burdens of rc,pnll"

= "ick but Still No Soul to Damn

A ..,elY to " , 175

r. for manufacturers to be held responsible Ill those cases, it is usuallr necessal) tlte ~w thai there is some defect in the product, or that manufacturers misled to S••

sumers. COil e crucia1 1ssue raised by Schaerer, Kelley, and Nicolescu (2009) is whether to hold

1h anutacturer strictly liable for all the damages (because they are better able to pay tht rn n~ation and to ensure responsible del>ign), or whether their limited ability to (Odlpe a pos~iblc application of their technology should limit their liability in some ~ne implication of applying strict liability, as Schaerer, Kelley, and Nicolescu ,y. s that doing so may result in consumer robot being designed by manufacturers _,ue, I

lbnit their liability by making them difficult to be reprogrammed by users, or safe-~ing them from obeying commands with hazardous implications. This could Jndude making the open-ended programming of their robots more diffiL-ult, or incor­porating safety measures intended to prevent harm to humans and property, such as ethical governor~ (Arkin 2009).~ Conversely, by shielding individual users from liabil­Ity, this could also encourage the reckless use of robotic systems by end-users. Cars •causally involved in many unintended harm~. yet it is the drivers who are typically beld responsible rather than manufacturers. Thts issue points to a fundamental tension betWeen identifying the causal responsibility of original manufacturers, end-users, and tldJd-parties, and the need for legal polides that can shape the responsible design and use of consumer robots, even if they run counter to our intuitions about causal RSpOnsibili ty.

An additional challenge that we may soon face is determining the extent to which aglwn robot has the ability to act "of its own accord," either unexpectedly or accord­In& to decisions it reaches independently of any person. As robot control programs become more capable of various forms of artificial reasoning and decision-making, tbese reasoning systems will become more and more like the orders and commands ofhuman operators in terms of their being causally responsible for the robots' actions, lad. as such, will tend to obscure the distinction just made between manufacturers llld users. While some sophisticated users may actually design their own artificial lnb!uigence systems for their robots, most will rely on the reasoning systems that come "itb these robots. Thus, liability for faults in that reasoning system might still revert to the manufacturer, except in cases where it can be shown that the user trained or ~&rammed the system to behave in ways in which it was not originally designed to behave. In its general form, the question of where commands and orders arise from Is integral to the legal notions of autonomy and agency. There is a growing literature acid~. 5tng the question of whether robots can be capable of moral autonomy, or even ~ responsibility (Wallach and Allen 2009). But missing from these discussion<> is

recognition that the law does not always hold morally autonomous humans full}' ~nsible for their own actions. The notable cases include those of duninis~ed

tal capacity, Involuntary actions, or when agents are following order~ of a supenor.

176

1 he next section will consider the possibility that even if a robot could

some sense, fully autonomous, then we might not be inclined to hold 1l lebecollle, h

for all of the harms it might cause. &ally liabl

11.2 Vicarious Liability, Agents, and Diminished Responsibility

There are multiple areas of the law that deal with cases in which one mde autonomous, rational being is acting on behalf of, or in subordinati i>end~nt Oft d" · on to anou

en 1scussed m the robotics literature are laws governing the owner~h· ' lt'! rc t d · 1 h 1P or dorn 1 a e antma s; owever, there are also analogous cases involving the 1 es. the r bTt f 1 aws governi

1a 1 1 yo emp oyees and soldiers following orders, as well as histoncal t ng eming the liability of masters for their slaves, and the ham1s they cause h aws &O\.

. w en agent are carrymg out the orders of their superiors. The laws governing anim 1

1

• I as are the S1mp er cases, as animals are not granted legal standing though they ma b • . • Y e entitled to protectiOns from abuse m many jurisdictions. More complicated ar" . " cases where a person can act e1ther on behalf of a superior o r o n their own behalf ancl · d .

. fi . • JU gmg a spec1 c act as bemg one or the other can have differing legal implications. Th of Ia d r . I h e area

~ ea ~ng wtt 1 t ese three-party relationships is called agency law," and we 1\111 c~nstde~ this after first considering the legal liabilities surrounding domesticated and Wild ammals.

It has been recognized that robots might be treated very much like domesticated ani~als: in that they clearly have some capacity for autonomous action, yet we arl' not mclmed to ascribe to them moral responsibility, or mental culpability, or the right~ that we grant to a human person (Caverley 2006; Schaerer, Kelly, and Nicolescu 20091. Domesticated animals are treated as property, and as such any harm~ to them are treated as property damages to the owner. Because they are domesticated, they are genera~ly seen as n~t being particularly dangerous if properly kept. Despite this, it Is recogntzed that ammals sometimes act on their own volition and cau~e harms, and so their owners can be held liable for the damages caused by their animals, even though the owners have no culpable intentions. If, however, the owners' behavior was criminaJiy negligent, reckless, or purposeful, then the owners can be held cnrni·

nally liable for the actions of their animals. For instance, it can be criminal wherl someone fails to keep his or her animal properly restrained, trains an animal to be vicious, orders an animal to attack, or otherwise intends for the animal to bring about a harm.

We should note that in such cases the intention of the animal is rarely relc,ant-it does not matter much for legal purposes whether the animal intended the harms it caused or not. Rather, it is the owner's intention that ~~ most relevant. ~loreo,·er, ill those cases where the animal's intention runs counter to the owner'<; intention thiS ca n have two different consequences. In ca'les of domestic animals, where thl' aniJ11<il

bUt Still No Soul to Damn to l(icll,

177

at·1cally unexpectedly or disobeys its owner, then this tends to ehaves err , '

..Adefll)' 0 a of the owner though does not release them from liability, and ,- 11e mens re • . . . ~JniSh 1 . h destruction of the animal. However, 10 cases of exot1c or w1ld ......- ,tlvates t e . . rJtfS1 rnt bi cats, nonhuman primates, and poisonous snakes, there IS a certa10

als such as g · · b · ·td) d b · lflllll '· . of their having independent reasonmg (1.e., emg WI an emg nnsiUOll · h h ·t· f pesuPr- .

11 dangerous than domesticated animals. And w1t t e recogn1 10n o

,.ore phYSIC~ ~ger they pose to other people, there is an additional burden of respon-l .. trln)lc a · · · · d"ff t t t tJie •· er owning such animals has vanous restnct1ons 10 1 eren s a es

on the own . stbllltY 2010· Kelley et al 2010) and the very act of owning them is recog-_ _...neeusa.org , · ' . \~~~"''-- · g other members of the community at risk, should the ammal escape _.....t as puttin . ~eone accidentally happen upon them. Failing to properly keep such an ~mmal or tically constitute criminally reckless endangerment, based on the known can automa

erousness of the animal. diD8 h tandard might also be applied in robotics. A standard off-the-shelf robot

sue a :> . . . might be considered as being like a domesticated anunal, m that tts manufa~ture~ has beeD entruSted to design a robot that is safe to use in most common s1t~at10ns . However, a high ly modified, custom programmed, or experimental robot m1ght be seen as being more like a wild animal, which might act in dange_rous or_ unexpecte~ ways. Thus, someone who heavily modi lies his or her robot, or bu1l~s a htghly exp~n­mental robot, is also undertaking greater responsibility for potentially endangenng tbe public with that robot. A good example would be someone who armed a robot with a dangerous weapon. Such an act could itself be seen as a form of reckless endan­

aament, subject to criminal prosecution, even if the robot did not actually harm anyone or destroy any property with the weapon. Similar principles apply in drunk­driving laws. By driving a car while drunk, an individual is putting others at risl\, even If they do not actually have an accident. It is because of this increased risk that the

activity is deemed criminal (as well as being codified in law as criminal). Building a robot that intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly endangers the public could be simi­larly viewed as a criminal activity, and laws to this effect should be established. More llmited cases of negligent endangerment might be determined to be civilly or crimi-

nally liable. With certain technologies that are known to be dangerous if misused-such as cars,

lllanes, guns, and explosives-there are laws that regulate their ownership and use. 1'his ensures both that the possession and use can be restricted to individuals who ~r_e trained and tested on the proper use of a technology, as well as to establish an expliCit ilnd traceable connection between a piece of technology and a responsible individual.

1'hus, the use of an airplane or automobile requires completing a regime of trai~ing ilnd testing to obtain an operator's license. The ownership of a gun or explostves

fequires a license, which also aids in tracking individuals who might obtam su~h lttaterials for illicit purposes, and in tracking the materials themselves. The ownershtp

\

l

178

of dangerous exotic animals, and in many jurisdictions even . . . \:erta10

aggresstve domesttcated dog breeds, such as pit bulls, often requires . Part,cu (Wikipedia.org 2010). It would not be unreasonable to expect that a sPetialllr.. ..

. • certai .... ,, robots, espectally those that are deemed dangerous, either physical! 0 <'la\l<:\ their unpredictable behavior or experimental nature of their rea~ontn v or bc:caule

· · 11· g systelll• requtre specta tcenses to own and operate. Licenses might also be rPn 1

·'·tnlo~... . -'1u red t ~

chtldren from being able to command dangerous robots just as they 0 Prt'\ . . , are not

to dnve cars, until they have reached a certain age and received training in t aUcr,. sible uses of the technology. her~

The treatment of robots as animals is appealing because il docs not . . . I . . . requtre us

gtve any specta nghts or constderatJOns to the robots-our only concern . . • IS 1\'ith tl..

o~ners. Another mteresting area of legal history is the laws governing slav "It

htstory of these laws goes back to ancient Rome and they have varied 8

.... 1et)·lht . ' ... atvt11 ~

ferent ttmes, places, and cu ltures, up to and including the slave law\ of th · U . e lilted

Stat~s. :rhc U.S. sla~e laws ulttmately treated slaves as property, but included numerou spet~ahze~ clauses mtended to manage the unique difficulties and dangersofensla\1n~ human bemgs, as well as encoded specific racial aspects of slavery into the laws them. selves. For the most part, slaves were treated as expensive animals, so that if a ~law damaged the property of someone other than his or her owner, their owner was liablt for the damage. Similarly, as property, the slave was protected from harm from md~ viduals other than his or her owner, but such harms were viewed as property damJ~ rather than crimes, such as assault or even murder. lndeed, the laws largely enshrin<d the ability of owners to harm their own slaves and not be subject to the criminallav.~ that might otherwise apply. Yet, it was also recognized that slaves exercised a will Ill their own, and so owners were not held liable for damages caused by their sla\'e\ ~ they had escaped. And, unlike animals, in the act of escaping, slaves were held liablt for their own choice of whether to escape or not, though those who aided them l\'elt

also held liable for assisting them in their escape. A full consideration of the implica­tions of slave law for our understanding of robotics is beyond the scope of this dlapteJ. but will be the subject of further research.

Agency law deals with cases in which one individual acts on behalf of another Individual. In these cases, the agent acts on behalf of a principal. There are variOUS . Jn\·ohf Circumstances where these relationships are established but they generally , ·s ~

some form of employment, often involving a contract.7 Whether or not there 1 t'(l

written contract, the liability of the principal for the actions of its agents is derl~ . . ctroll

from the doctnne of respondeat supenor-tha t superiors are responsible tor the~ ob of their subordinates. Thus, if an employee causes a harm in the conduct of their I and thus explicitly or implicitly at the discretion of their employer, the employe~;. liable. This is called vicarious liability-when one person or legal entity is liable tor

Still No Soul to Damn bUl

179

For Instance, when a delivery truck damages a parked car, the ~~t .

a anv, rather than the individual driver, can be held hable. There are cornP : however which recognize the independent autonomy of employ-

to thiS, ' mployer's defenses against such liability claims is to argue that the

t thee 0 s acting on their own behalf, and not that of the employer-which gener-

w:howing they were not doing their job in the typical manner. Courts make --v between detours, in which an employee must digress from Lhe usual "'-.

of carrying out their job in order to achieve the purposes of their employer, In which the employee is acting solely for their own purposes. Thus, wh~n X

an intersection blocked and must take a different route to make a dehv-loyer would still be liable for the damage to the parked car. However, if

~~d decided to take a different route in order to visit a friend before making then the court may decide that this constitutes a frolic and the driver is

for the damage to the parked car because the driver was not carrying out as an employee, or fulfilling the will or purpose of the employer, at the

the accident. Ideas might be usefully applied to many kinds of service robots. 1t would

•I!IIJIIl, for most uses of a robot to assist a person in daily life, such as driving them shopping for them, cleaning and maintaining their home, running errands,

on, the robot would be little different than a human servant or employee. As

lll!IPf4i:arlous liability would apply, and the owner would therefore be liable for any used by that robot in the conduct of their owner's business. This would also

cases of detour, in which the robot was unable to carry out its duties in the or directed manner, and sought alternative routes, plans, or strategies for

--... its given goals. JObots grow more sophisticated and autonomous, we might eventually be

to argue that they actually are capable of developing their own purposes. For robot, an owner might seek a defense from liability for the actions of a robot Was on a frolic of its own-a robot which, though employed in the service of

~r. caused some harm while pursuing its own purpose. Depending on the ways ~ such robots might be programmed, and our ability to review its reasoning

Jllanning processes, we might actually be able to determine from its internal ._..Which purposes it was actually in pursuit of when it caused a particular harm. ~.it might be that it was pursuing a dual purpose, or that the purposes were

~. in which case the courts would have to make this determination in much ~e manner as they do for human agents. However, th1s raises several issues 'trdtng Whether robots might themselves have legal standing, especially if they are ~le of frolicking, or whether they might be subject to penalties and punishments,

tt is to these issues that we now turn.

(

180

1 1.3 Rights, Personhood, and Diminished Responsibility

Modem legal ~ystems were e~tablished on the presuppo\ition that all legale persons. While a robot might someday be considered a person, we are no;httes face this situation any time soon. However, over time the law ha\ mana hkr:J} with several kinds of nonpersons, or quasi-persons, and we can look to thegsed to

e fo Insights on how we might treat robots that are nonper\On), or quasi.

Personhood is a hotl> debated concept, and many perspecttves in that debate a~ in strongly held beliefs lrom religious faith and philosophical di~positio ~

ns 111 notably, the status of unborn human fetuses, and the statu~ of se\·erel\ brain da and comatose tndtviduals have led to much debate in the United ~tatel> over;a appropriate legal comtderatton and rights. Yet, desptte strong!} differing per~p.eaJ

on such issues, the legal systems in pluralistic societies have found ways to deaJ Pta cally with these and several other borderline cases of personhood.

Minor children are a prime example of quasi-persons. Minors do not enjoy thfl rights of personhood that adults do. In particular, they cannot sign contraC1s 01 become involved in various sorts of legal arrangements, because they do not ha\·etht right to do so as minors. They can become involved in such arrangement~ only through the actions of their parents or legal guardians. In this sense, they do not hm full legal standing. Of course, the killing of a child is murder in the same wa~ t1u1 the killing of an adult is, and so a child is still a legal person m this sense-and fact , is entitled to more protections than an adult. Children can thus be comid~redJ type of quasi-person, or legal quasi-agent. The case of permanently mentally Impautd people can be quite similar to children. Even full-fledged legal persons can claim

temporary impairment of judgment, and thereby diminished responsibility for thdl actions, given certain circumstances, for example, temporary Insanity, or being tr1 ol­untarily drugged. The point is that some aspects of legal agency can apply to entitieS that fall short of full-fledged personhood and full responsibility, and it seems reason­able to think that some robots will eventually be granted this kind or quasi·agenr.

the eyes of the law before they achieve full legaJ personhood.

1 1 .4 Crime, Punishment, and Personhood in Corporations and Robots

. pnmaril} Criminal law is concerned with punishing wrongdoers, whereas ci\rJI Jaw tS jill

concerned with compelling wrongdoers to compensate tho~e harmed: Ther~ .~,~ important principle underlying this distinction: crimes de~erve to he purushed· rt "'J

tner less of any compensation to those directly harmed by the crime. l>ut ano ted the harmed pam in a crime is the whole of societv I hu\, the caw i' pros~,11 t the 'itate, or, by "the people," and the debt owed h\- thl' wrongdller •~ 0"

01 11t • society. While the puni~hments may take different fonm, the poult ol punisll

I(Jck, but Still No Soul to Damn 181

all} conceived of as bemg corrective in one or more senses: that the wrong­their debt to society (retribution); that the wrongdoer is to be reformed so

JIIYS repeat the offense (reform); or that other people in society will be deterred 10

rrutting a similar wrong (deterrence). (Ofllare twO fundamentJl problems with applying Criminal law to robots: (1)

~actions require a moral agent to perform them, and (2) it is not clear that it I Je to punish a robot. While moral agency is not essential to civil law, moral

Jsessentlal to criminal law, and is deeply connected to our concepts of punish­~bution, reform, and deterrence). Moral agency might be defined in various

IJUt, In criminal law, it ultimately must serve the role of betng an autonomous who has a culpable mind, and who can be punished. Without moral agency,

can be harm (and hence civil liability), but not guilt. Thus, there is no debt to society unless there is a moral agent to incur it-It is merely an accident

of nature, but not a crime. Similarly, only a moral agent can be reformed, which

JtlliiiiiS the development or correction of a moral character-otherwise it is merely tldD8 of a problem. And finally, deterrence only makes sense when moral agents

...,.ble of recognizing the similarity of their potential choices and actions to of other moral agents who have been punished for the wrong choices

aiiMittlons-without this reflexivity of choice by a moral agent, and recognition of tlli!l!lltY between and among moral agents, punishment cannot possibly result in

~. aw in the previous section that it is more likely that we will treat robots as

~ns long before they achieve full personhood. Solum ( 1991-1992) has given consideration to the question of whether an artificial intelligence (AI) might to achieve legal personhood, using a thought experiment in which an AI acts

manager of a trust. He concludes that while personhood is not impossible in ....... for an AI to achieve, it is also not clear how we would know that any par­lilloo..L.AI has achieved it. The same argument could be applied to robots. Solum ~ a legal Turing Test in which it comes down to a court's determination

an AI could stand trial as a legal agent in its own right, and not merely as a or agent of some other legal entity. He argues that a court would ultimately

decision on whether the robot in question has moral agency, and whether it ~e to punish it-in o ther words, could the court fine or imprison an AI that

'ges. a trust? In cases of quasi-personhood and diminished responsibility, • chtldren and the mentally impaired are usually shielded from punishment

~ ltsult of their limited legal status, specifically because they lack proper moral

~Is another relevant example in law of legal responsibility resting in a nonhu- X I namely corporations. rhe corporation is a nonhuman entity that has been

granted many of the legal rights and responsibilities of a person. Corporations

I

i

182

can (through the actions of their agents) own property, ~ign contrau., ·'Od

hable for negligence. In certain cases, corporations can even be purw~lll-d lor bt· actr\ rtie\, ~uch as fraud, criminal negligence, and causing environnlcntal da tr crucial aspt.>ct of treating corporatrons as persons depends on th~ ahiiJtv rna them, though thi'> is not near!) so straightforward as it is for human p:. to Put

-.r'<~n~ Se\enteenth-centUf) Lord Chancellor of england put It, corporatiom h<lve • to damn and no bod) to kick" (Coffee 1981), so how can they be expected

1 no

moral conscience? Of course, corporations exist to make mone\ for the .... 0 batt

- ' •u\t'h'el stod.holder'>. and as such can be given monetary punishmenh, and rn certarn such as antrtru'it violations, ~plit apart, or dissolved altogether. 1 hough the)· ca be imprisoned 111 crrminal cases, responsible agents within the corporation prosecuted ror their individual actions. As a result of this, and other a'>l>ccts of: rations being complex ~ociotechnical systems in which there arc many stakeho!: wit h different relalions to the monetary wealth of a corporation, it can he difficult

assign a pu.nlshment tl~at ~chieves retrib~tion, reform, and deterrence, while met~ other rcqurrcments of 1usttce, such as farrness and proportionality.~

Clearly, robots arc different in many important respects from corporations. Ho11 C\ll.

there are also many important similarities, and il is no coincidence that Coffee's (19

seminal paper on corporate punishment draws heavily on Simon's (1947) work

o rganizational behavior and decision making, and in particular hm" corporate punJlh. ment could influence organizational decision making through deterrence Nonethel

a great deal of work needs to be done in order to judge just how fruitful this ana is. While monetary penalties work as punishments for corporauom, this Is be\11

they target the essential purpose for the existence of corporations to make mont!'

The essential purposes of robots may not be so straightforward, and, if they exlsl

aU, they will vary from robot to robot and may not take a form that can be ta'llr fairly penalized by a court.

The most ob' ious difference from corporations is that robot~ do han bodJtS kick, though it is not clear that kicking them would achieve the traditional goals punishment. I he various forms of corporal punishment presuppose additional~ chological desires and rears central to being human that may not readilY aprh rt robots-concerning pain, freedom of movement, mortality, and ~o on. rhus, tof'U~ humiliation, Imprisonment, and death are not likely to be effective in aclllt'

1m

retribution, reform, or deterrence in robots. There could be a polic)' w dcstro\ Jl it \10

robots that do harm, but, as is the case with animals that harm people. tilt'

essentially be a preventative measure to avoid future harms by an tndtvidU<1~11:~ than a true punishment. Whether il might be possible to build in ,, techn til means to enable genuine punishment in robots is an open que\lton. In ,hort~ is little ~eme in trying to apply our traditional notions of punt,hlll~:nt to~ directly. Jhis appears to me to be a greater hurdle to ascribrng mor<tl ,,~~'rtlY 10

183

.,ct~er hurdles, such as whether II is possible to effectively program moral deci­

_.Jtillg

cGf~C~usion

that this brief overview o f how certain legal concepts might be applied to _,r and future robots has convinced the reader that ju risprudence is a good place

trarning some of the issues rn robot ethics. I do not claim that this is the o nJy _.. proach, or that it will be capable of resolving every issue in robot ethics. i maintain that we can delineate different clac;ses of ethical problems, some of

wtU have straightforward solutions from a legal perspective, while other classes ems will remain unresolved. In terms of thinking about robots as manufac-

products, many of the mo~t practical and pre!.sing Issues facing robotics engi­can be seen as being essentially like those facing other engineers. ln these cases,

~~~sary to take proper ca re in imagining, assessing, and mitigating the potential dltSOf a techno logy. just what this means for robotics will, of course, differ fro m adllrtechnologies, and should be the focus of further discussion and research. It is .,-11e11ef that robot ethics will have its greatest influence by seek.lng to define and lllllllsb expectations and standards of practice for the robotics industry.

'llle remain a host o f metaethical questions facing robot ethics that lie beyond -.,e of the legal perspective. While moral agency is significant to the legal per-

• jurisprudence alone cannot determine or define just what moral agency is.

~.the ethical questions facing the construction of truly autonomous technolo­~d special consideration in their own right. While there was no room to

it in this chapter, the legal per pective can also con tribute to framing issues use of robots in warfare, though it offers little in the way of determining what 9alues we should aspire to enshrine in the laws governi ng the use of lethal In particular, interna tional law, humanitarian law, uniform codes of mili tary

IIIINtlct, the Geneva Conventions, the uremberg Principles, and international laws ...... antipersonnel mines and limiting biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons,

~-ltarting points fo r theorizing the ethics of using robot technologies in warfare, ;;:: fall short in suggesting new sta ndards for the ethical conduct of the kind of

that robo ts might make possible.

......

~ S~ttom of Anglo-American law, a distinction is drawn between criminal and civil law, n Civil taw there is a further distinction between the laws of torts and contracts. Tort

"'ith property right\ and infringements out~idc of, or in addition to, contractual obliga­

Crim~. and is primarily concenwd with damage to one's person o r property and other

One has the right to ~ue respomible partie\ for damages that one has ~uffered, even

184

if one Is not engaged in an explicit legal contract with the other party and . ' If) il<1dl

regardles~ of whether the other party also committcu a criminal act when rau\tn t10!J . l' 1· t I ks · · b · g the •1-m ques 1on. or aw sec · JUStice y compelling wrongdoers to compcnsatl' <) • ""

' r ll'la)< those who were harmed for their loss (Prosser et al. 1984). Criminal law deals With w t' w think of as moral wrongdoing or offenses against society, such as theft, a~sault hat lit and seck.s just ice b)• punishing the wrongdoer. ' ll'lUr<14;,

There are several crucial differences between the concepts of criminal dam d d h · . ag~ ani! amages an t CIT accordant penalt1es. Most generally, for something to be a crim b I I. . e, lhere e a aw that exp tcitly Stipulates the act in question as being criminal, wherca~ d

11 v darn can result from a broad range of acts, or even inaction, and neeu not be explicitly

5 .

written law. Criminal acts are usual!)• distinguished by their having criminal intent!'tififd

state of mind in the individual committing the crime, known in Latin as "'''m rec1. WhiJ~I!Jibt forms of negligence can rise to the level of criminality, and can be characterized as non tit!: states of lg~ora~ce, jud~me~ts of criminality typically consider mental states explicitly. C.i~ In companson, ts often mdtffercnt to the mental states of the agents involved. o\nd finally thee

are diffe~ence~ in the exactmcnt of punishments for transgressions. Under civil law, the~~ are repatred by a transfer of money or property from the liable transgressor to the victim,

1111 in criminal law the debt of the guilty transgressor is owed to the general public at large or ''It

state, for the transgressor has violated the common goou. A criminal pcmalty owed to soc.

need not be evaluated in monetary terms, but might instead be measured in the revocation It

liberty within society, expulsion from society, and in cultures of corporeal punishment. til! revocation of bodily integrity or life, or the inDiction of pain, humiliation, and suffering. In !all

instances, both frameworks apply, and criminal penalties may be owed over and above t1r

restorative monetary damages owed to the victim of a crime.

2. For more on product liability law, see chapter 17 of Prosser et al. 1984.

3. It is in this way very much like the doctrine o( clurtble e{fl?ct In Just War Theory (Walzer 19.

in that It separates knowledge of the possible harms of one's actions from the Intention to cnr

ally bring those harms about. According to the doctrine of double effect, the killing of Inn :t

civilians is permissible if the Intended effect is on a militarily valid target, whereas the killincCII dvilians is not permissible if the intended effect is actually to harm the civilians.

4. For more on criminal negligence and liability, see chapter 5 of Prosser ct at. 1984.

5. This notion is also popular in sdence fiction, starting with Isaac Aslmov·~ ·• lnree LaW~ Robotics" (later four). and the "restraining bolts" In Sttlr Wms drolds, all of which aim toP~\ robots from doing harm, despite maintaining their willingness to obey orders.

6. For more on the legal theory of agency, see Gregory 200 1. gtllll

7. The prindpal can also be a corporation, in which case It is unable to act without itS 8

which raises certain issue.s for corporate puni,hment, ~ we will see.

lders aod 8. As Coffee (1981) argues, typical monetary fines against a company hurt ~harl!h0

111'

~;eli low-level employees more directly than they hurt the managers and dcchion ma

but Still No Soul to Damn ~~

18S

. ·h diminishes their ability to deter or reform those who made the bad decisions will~

y, 1

.ness of imposing such fines. th" ilh ..

~grnents

keto thank Lawrence Solum for his thoughts on an early draft of this chapter, ,.,o)dU ~adver for his thoughtful questions and comments, and special thanks go

~Ever~ for his numerous helpful discussions and legal insights on these topics.

JDnald. 2009. Goveming Lethal Belra~·ior in Alltonomorts Robots. New York: CRC Press.

f!ttr. 2006. What should we want from a robot ethic? /nlcmwtiuna/ Review o( lnfomrntion

6 (12): 9- 16.

Peter. 2007. Robots and r~sponslbility from a legal perspective. <http://peterasaro.org/

-.ciASAR0%20Legai%20Perspective.pdf> (acces~ed July 14, 20 Ill.

reter. 2011. Remote-control crimes: Roboethics and legal jurisdictions of telc-agency. IEEE

and Automation Magazitre 18 ( 1): 68-71.

llitllll. William. 1985. Attributing responsibility to computer systems. Metaplrilosoplry 16 (4): ... lalilheusa.org. 2010. Exotic animals summary. <http:/lwww.bornfreeusa.org/b4a2_exot ic

Jlllillab_summary.php> (accessed September 11, 2010).

~. Daniel. 2006. Android science and animal right~: Does an analogy exist? C01mectio11 18 (4): 403-417.

John. 1981. "No soul to damn: No body to kick": An unscandalizcd inquiry into the

-.,of corporate punishment. Michigan Law Revkw 79 (3): 386-459.

~ Daniel. 1997. When I-IAI. kills, who'~ to blame?: Computer ethics. In HAL'~ Legacy:

Computer as Drt'f/111 and R1•a/ity, ed. 0. G. Stork, 35 1-365. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

~. William. 2001. Tire Ltlw of Agency a/UI Partner!>hip, 3rd ed. New York: West Group.

~com. 2010. <http:/lstore.irobot.com/shop/index.jsp?categoryld=3311368> (accessed ber II, 2010).

•Rlthard, Enrique Schacrer, Micaela Gomez, and Monica Nicolescu. 2010. Advatrced Rob<>tics ): 1861-1871.

M. l'Od E. 2006. J-lc1Cking Room/Ja: ExtremeTec/1. New York: Wiley. Sec ai)O <http://

~roomba.corn/code/> (acces~ed :-Jovember 26, 2010).

<'..art. 1990. Ethics in bioengineering. /emma/ o( Bn~illc'H Etlric~ 9 (3): 227-231.