The Other Question: Can and Should Robots Have Rights? Argumentative Essay Example

The issue about rights that robots should possess and enjoy is an ongoing debate. The argument is that artificial machines should enjoy some rights based on their ability to reason and follow instructions like human beings. One of the main controversial issues is on the borderline on the capabilities of machines on what they can or should do. However, the main interpretation of the words can' and should' poses the main challenge to human beings, as they must decide on behalf of robots to identify the respect, which they deserve to receive from the public (Gunkel 7). The interpretation of can is their potential whereas that of should is the limit they should meet. The idea is, robots may not have a mind of their own and may depend on the directives from human beings to act or initiate a process. Therefore, the main area of interest is the limits to which human beings make decisions that influence robots. In addition, there is an aspect of the social intelligence of a robot and its ability to interact with others independently. The issue of robots having rights becomes of special interest when determining the moral standing of machines that have artificial intelligence, which stems from human beings. Robots possess human-like characteristics, which brings special attention to them and their ability to have some rights (Krichmar and Hiroaki 73). For instance, some of the most sophisticated robots can portray critical and creative thinking skills, are courageous, and smart, and can even follow instructions directed to them from different areas of command. Robots and machines have increased the amount of help they extend to human beings over the years, which necessitates the need to have them protected and owning rights; robots can have rights, and should, therefore, have them specified.

Arguments

The recent developments in technological and scientific knowledge have created beings that human beings need to make their lives easier and fulfill some of their responsibilities. The increase in knowledge has created unique beings like robots that have a sense of intelligence, which makes it possible for the machines to make both minor and major decisions on its own (Gunkel 13). Hence, a self-aware machine that has various capabilities to understand and think before making a decision deserves to receive rights from people. In addition, the creations advanced by human beings have distinct characters like their builders, which include emotions, awareness, and consciousness, which justifies the reason why robots need to have rights. They may not possess the highly intelligent systems like that of human beings, but as long as they have the slight similarities, then it is possible to consider administering some form of respect and rights on them as distinct beings. Some of the rights that robots can enjoy include protection from misuse by human beings who might take advantage of their capabilities and perform illegal activities. This stems from the fact that robots obey commands from the source meaning that instructions received can be either positive or negative. Robots have no control over the type of instructions they receive. In addition, their intelligence levels are not developed to determine whether something is right or wrong, it becomes an issue on respecting and according to robots rights to prevent them from engaging in morally unacceptable activities. It means that if the commander instructing a robot accorded robots some form of respect and adhered to their rights, then there would be no issue of machines being used to perform morally unacceptable activities that do not derive any benefit to them or the society.

Robots do not qualify to become humans, but since they are distinct and unique beings that perform independently, then robots should have rights (Gunkel 11). Robots form part of the social and ecosystem that contribute to the wellness of human beings by making their lives easier and more efficient. Hence, it is the responsibility of human beings, who possess the greatest and highest form of emotional intelligence amongst all creatures, to define laws and rights that will help protect the robots. It means that human beings take control of every decision that robots make but ensure that they experience the highest form of protection to ensure that no one misuses them. For instance, one of the rights that robots might enjoy includes the right to receive protection from the ethical and legal systems in the world and be designed for specific purposes that contribute to the wellness of human beings. The existing legal and ethical systems in the world should ensure that robots enjoy the highest form of freedom so that people do not misuse them for wrong purposes (Krichmar and Hiroaki 54). Hence, every purchase of a robot should be to perform the core function, which will reduce abuse of artificial intelligence amongst people. Developers and designers who manufacture robots will also be bound by rules meaning that they will only manufacture machines meant for specific purposes. This will reduce the possibility of people misusing robots for their selfish needs.

Robots should have rights since with the development in technological knowledge, there is a high probability of the machines possessing AGI, commonly known as, and the artificial general intelligence that will enable them to reason, and think likes human beings. Due to the large capacities and capabilities that robots possess now and are most likely to have in the future, there is a high chance that their thinking and intelligence might surpass that of human beings meaning that men may need to rely on them as a source of information. Developments in technology continue to take place, and it is only logical and realistic to define the rights of robots as early as possible and avoid conflicts that may arise when designers come up with the ultimate edition of robots that can reason like humans. Designers know their robots meaning that they can form the team of experts of how their creations should be or not used which will help protect the interests of every individual that uses the machines. Further, state-funding projects of designing robots will reduce by a large margin, as the machines will only be used for the right purpose as opposed to machinery to fight against enemies (Gunkel 3). Designers who make the robots will also be in a position to limit production of their products to prevent misuse of robots and possibility of people taking advantage of robots that may not think independently.

Objections

Robots cannot have rights since they are creatures made from human knowledge and only act once they receive instructions from individuals that control them. It is right to acknowledge that robots possess some form of intelligence, but it is not natural as it stems from the range allowed by their creators (Krichmar and Hiroaki 24). This means that some robots can have high levels of artificial intelligence than other machines even though created by the same individual. The absence of autonomy in the robots justifies why it is a narrow and insufficient argument to perceive robots as beings that should own rights. Despite the amount of scientific knowledge that currently exists in the world, no machine has been able to think on its own or have a brain capacity as that of human beings meaning that advancing rights to them is not a realistic aspect as it does not make sense. Gunkel (7) argues that for an item or individual to be considered one of moral standing, it should have some capabilities like in their intelligence, freedom to choose, autonomy, consciousness, amongst others. However, robots lack that capability which means that advocating for their rights is a misplaced conception that derives no sense. In addition, robots cannot experience pain or pleasure, which means that their mental capacities have not reached the levels of human beings or animals that possess rights, which other people should observe and respect. Therefore, it is tricky and impossible to determine whether robots can be considered to suffer from internal and external factors since they do not have feelings or a method to quantify their thoughts. However, there is a high probability in the future of having human beings factor in rights that robots should possess based on the increased intelligence levels they will possess. For instance, if robots can be in a position to hold logical conversations with human beings and communicate on what they want, then it would be possible to understand their sentiments on rights. For now, it remains a debate of what should be included and what should not since robots have not had full capabilities to express their wants and needs. It means that human beings determine their rights since they are the robot creators and have power to limit them depending on what they perceive to be right or wrong.

Krichmar and Hiroaki (34) argue that giving robots rights is a dangerous move by organizations who manufacture the machines, as they will use the electronic persons to take advantage of other individuals. It means that countries that have better and improved technological knowledge will use it for their benefit ignoring the developing nations. In a country that has the technical knowledge to manufacture and design robots, only a few intellects will have a comparative advantage over the rest, as they will command their machines to perform tasks they only want. Hence, robots might be used to take advantage of commercial activities that generate a few individuals supernormal incomes while ignoring the needs of the rest of the citizens. Corporate organizations will also use the rights of robots to initiate laws in the country that might contradict with the needs and rights of human beings in a nation. Hence, the focus might shift from the needs and rights of humans to that of robots as a small number of people in the society might have interest in the machines. It might also interfere with the laws in a country since robots might demand equal rights with humans like the right to live; vote, and association, yet machines central control are operators. In addition, there might be complications on the lines drawn between human being needs and robots rights. For instance, there might be no definitions on whether robots can cast their votes for human beings and rules they must follow to fulfill the meet requirements, others are like age and legality to take part in national matters.

The issue of robots having rights recognized by every human being is a sensitive issue and continues to attract the attention of different people in the world. Despite the development and discovery of artificial intelligence on machines and designing robotic components that act like humans, there is no definition of rights the robots should enjoy. Their inability to reason and have the life like living organisms makes it hard for robot developers to define the basis of rights. In addition, the fact that they have a none existence independence mind and highly depends on the directives from humans to perform various tasks is a confirmation that defining robotic rights might take time since the machine designers are the determinants of what should be and what should not be right of devices. In addition, it might be impossible to define robotic rights as internationally recognized like those of human beings, which do not change the world. However, the fact that robots have some abilities to perform human activities means that they should get protection from exploiters who may take advantage of them by defining rights that every individual must adhere to when interacting with a machine. This will ensure that robots are only used for the primary purpose they were made.

Works Cited

Gunkel, David J. "The other question: can and should robo...