Here's an interesting ethical question.

[csense]

...would this hypothetical machine be given the same legal rights as a person?


Absolutely not, because it can be manufactured on a scale that greatly exceeds human reproduction...

I would think that you would need to make an argument of denial based upon the qualitative nature of the being, rather than the quantitative.

This rasies an interesting question concerning the U.S.Constitution, and how it does, or does not, define the bearer of these rights. Coincidentally, the very same concept is being played out as we speak since the basis for the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling was just such a conflict of definitions, or lack thereof.

Concerning the robot, the question is, does the U.S. Constitution limit these rights to biological lifeforms, and to be more specific, the human species.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Concerning the robot, the question is, does the U.S. Constitution limit these rights to biological lifeforms, and to be more specific, the human species.

Implicitly it means humans only, given original intent. That could change given a robot civil rights movement. Enough robots plus robot sympathizers and a constitutional amendment is possible.

Of course, unlike abolishing slavery or establishing female sufferage, the robots would have to have been deliberately programmed by humans to want equal rights.

But technology could blur the distinction between humans and robots by humans becoming more robotic.

Does anyone here remember the Asimov short story Segregationist? Not part of the usual Asimov robotics universe. It's about humans and 'metallos' (don't call them robots, they don't like it).

 

[csense]

Implicitly it means humans only, given original intent.

I would agree.
The problem is, it is not explicit.

One could argue though, that it is self evident.
One could also argue that marriage as it appears in the Massachusetts Constitution is not only implicit, but also self evident, yet...

 

[csense]

Of course, unlike abolishing slavery or establishing female sufferage, the robots would have to have been deliberately programmed by humans to want equal rights.

Legally speaking, the robot's desire is irrelevent, much as the desire of the slave to be free is irrelevent to the moral, or ethical question of freedom and equal rights.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Legally speaking, the robot's desire is irrelevent, much as the desire of the slave to be free is irrelevent to the moral, or ethical question of freedom and equal rights.

Not irrelevant if they are willing to fight for it. How do you supposed laws get changed?

 

[csense]

Not irrelevant if they are willing to fight for it. How do you supposed laws get changed?

Who's talking about modifiying laws?

 

[csense]

Does the immorality of slavery lie solely within the heart of the slave, or does it reside in all of us.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Who's talking about modifiying laws?

Does the immorality of slavery lie solely within the heart of the slave, or does it reside in all of us.

I specifically mentioned amending the constitution, no?

If it resides in us all, is that not because we have the heart of a slave, too? What with also being human, and all that?

Probably doesn't apply to our hypothetical robots, unless the robots are constructed according to some principle other than programmable machines as we know them.

 

[csense]

I specifically mentioned amending the constitution, no?

Yes, but I didn't, and I am not now.

My question was concerning the Constitution as it stands now.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yes, but I didn't, and I am not now.

My question was concerning the Constitution as it stands now.

Clearly as it stands now, machines have no rights at all and indeed may be scrapped at will.

Nor do animals have constitutional rights, though there are laws to protect them to some extent.

If those are your terms, what point are you trying make, if any? Or are you merely cross-talking?

The thread was originally about hypothetical machines with human level intelligence, and what should be done when such exist.

 

[csense]

Clearly as it stands now, machines have no rights at all and indeed may be scrapped at will.

Nor do animals have constitutional rights, though there are laws to protect them to some extent.

If those are your terms, what point are you trying make, if any? Or are you merely cross-talking?

The thread was originally about hypothetical machines with human level intelligence, and what should be done when such exist.

The thread still is about hypothetical machines with human level intelligence, and what should be done when such exist

 

[Silicon]

http://www.noonelikesyou.net/TFT-robots/