Advertisement

Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 205–213 | Cite as

Responsible computers? A case for ascribing quasi-responsibility to computers independent of personhood or agency

  • Bernd Carsten Stahl
Article

Abstract

There has been much debate whether computers can be responsible. This question is usually discussed in terms of personhood and personal characteristics, which a computer may or may not possess. If a computer fulfils the conditions required for agency or personhood, then it can be responsible; otherwise not. This paper suggests a different approach. An analysis of the concept of responsibility shows that it is a social construct of ascription which is only viable in certain social contexts and which serves particular social aims. If this is the main aspect of responsibility then the question whether computers can be responsible no longer hinges on the difficult problem of agency but on the possibly simpler question whether responsibility ascriptions to computers can fulfil social goals. The suggested solution to the question whether computers can be subjects of responsibility is the introduction of a new concept, called “quasi-responsibility” which will emphasise the social aim of responsibility ascription and which can be applied to computers.

Keywords

agency ascription computer personality quasi-responsibility responsibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C. Allen. Calculated Morality: Ethical Computing in the Limit. In I. Smit, Iva and G.E. Lasker, editors, Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making and Human Action, Volume I, pp. 19–23, (Workshop Proceedings, Baden-Baden, 31.07.-01.08.2002), 2002Google Scholar
  2. Allen C., Varner G., Zinser J. (2000) Prolegomena to Any Future Artificial Moral Agent. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12: 251–261MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen C., Smit I., Wallach W. (2006) Artificial Morality: Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Hybrid Approaches. Ethics and Information Technology 7(3): 149–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anonymous. Wearable Computers help Autistic Kids. [available: http://www.knowledgedock.com/pooled/articles/BF_NEWSART/view.asp?Q=BF_NEWSART_24460], accessed 09.11.2004, 2004aGoogle Scholar
  5. Anonymous. Augmented Reality Technology Promises Breakthroughs In Education And Cognitive Potential. [available: http://www.newstarget.com/001618.html], accessed 09.11.2004, 2004bGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayertz K. (1995) Eine kurze Geschichte der Herkunft der Verantwortung. In Bayertz K. (ed.), Verantwortung: Prinzip oder Problem? Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp. 3–71Google Scholar
  7. Bechtel W. (1985) Attributing Responsibility to Computer Systems. Metaphilosophy 16(4): 296–305Google Scholar
  8. Bierhoff H.W. (1995) Verantwortungsbereitschaft, Verantwortungsabwehr und Verantwortungszuschreibung - Sozialpsychologische Perspektiven. In Bayertz K. (ed.), Verantwortung: Prinzip oder Problem? Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp. 217 - 240Google Scholar
  9. Birnbacher D. (1995) Grenzen der Verantwortung. In Bayertz K. (ed.), Verantwortung: Prinzip oder Problem? Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp. 143–183Google Scholar
  10. Bloomfield B.P., Vurdubakis T. (2003) Imitation Games: Turing, Menard, Van Meegeren. Ethics and Information Technology 5(1): 27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks R. (2002) Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us. Pantheon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Cerqui D. (2002) The Future of Humankind in the Era of Human and Computer Hybridization: An Anthropological Analysis. Ethics and Information Technology 4(2): 101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collste G. (2000a) The Internet-Doctor. In Collste G. (ed.), Ethics in the Age of Information Technology. Centre for Applied Ethics, Linköping pp. 119–129Google Scholar
  14. Collste G. (2000b) Ethical Aspects of Decision Support Systems for Diabetes Care. In Collste G. (ed.), Ethics in the Age of Information Technology. Centre for Applied Ethics, Linköping pp. 181–194Google Scholar
  15. De George R.T. (1999) Business Ethics. 5th edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  16. P. Fauconnet. La responsabilité: étude de sociologie. In M.␣Neuberg, editor, La responsabilité — questions philosophiques, pp. 141–152. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1997, (orig: 1928)Google Scholar
  17. Fischer J.M. (1999) Recent Work on Moral Responsibility. Ethics 110(1): 93–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Floridi L., Sanders J.W. (2004) On the Morality of Artificial Agents. Minds and Machine 14: 349–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. French P.A. (1992) Responsibility Matters, University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KansasGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart H.L.A. (1968) Punishment and Responsibility - Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Hausman D.M., McPherson M.S. (1996). Economic Analysis and Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et alGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonas H. (1984) Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. MGoogle Scholar
  23. D.G. Johnson Computer Systems: Moral Entities but not Moral Agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 2007 (this issue)Google Scholar
  24. Johnson D.G., Powers T.M. (2005). Computer Systems and Responsibility: A Normative Look at Technological Complexity. Ethics and Information Technology 7(2): 99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. D. Kairy. A Philadelphia Story. Legal Affairs May/June 2003Google Scholar
  26. G. Korienek and W. Uzgalis. Adaptable Robots. Metaphilosophy (33:1/2) (Special Issue: Cyberphilosophy: The Intersection of Philosophy and Computing. Edited by J.H. Moor and T.W. Bynum), 83–97, 2002Google Scholar
  27. Lewis H.D. (1991) Collective Responsibility In May L., Hoffman S. (eds.), Collective Responsibility: Fife Decades of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., Savage, Maryland, pp. 17–34Google Scholar
  28. Lipinski T.A., Buchanan E., Britz J.J. (2002) Sticks and stones and words that harm: Liability vs. responsibility, section 230 and defamatory speech in cyberspace. Ethics and Information Technology 4(2): 143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Long R.T. (1999) The Irrelevance of Responsibility. In May L., Hoffman S. (eds.), Collective Responsibility: Fife Decades of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., Savage, Maryland, pp. 118 - 145Google Scholar
  30. May L. (1992) Sharing Responsibility. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. L. May and S. Hoffman. editors, Collective Responsibility: Fife Decades of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., Savage, Maryland, 1991Google Scholar
  32. Moore M.S. (1999) Causation and Responsibility. In Paul E.F., Miller F.D., Paul J. (eds.), Responsibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al., pp. 1–51Google Scholar
  33. Neuberg M. (1997) Introduction à “La responsabilité”. In Neuberg M. (ed.), La responsabilité - questions philosophiques. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp. 1–24Google Scholar
  34. Nissenbaum H. (1995) Computing and Accountability. In Johnson D.G., Nissenbaum H. (eds.), Computers, Ethics & Social Values. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp. 526–538Google Scholar
  35. E.F. Paul, F.D. Miller and J. Paul, editors. Responsibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al., 1999Google Scholar
  36. Picard R.W. (1997) Affective Computing. MIT Press, London, Cambridge MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  37. Ricoeur P. (1995) Le concept de responsabilité - Essai d’analyse sémantique. In Ricoeur P. (ed.), Le Juste. Editions Esprit, ParisGoogle Scholar
  38. Ricoeur P. (1990) Soi-même comme un autre. Edition du Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  39. Ricoeur P. (1983) Tems et récit – 1. L’intrigue et le récit historique. Edition du Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  40. R. Scheines. Computation and Causation. Metaphilosophy (33:1/2), Special Issue: Cyberphilosophy: The Intersection of Philosophy and Computing. Edited by J.H. Moor and T.W. Bynum: 158–180, (2002)Google Scholar
  41. M. Schlick. Quand sommes-nous responsable? In M. Neuberg, editor, La responsabilité – questions philosophiques, pp. 27–38. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1997, (orig: 1930)Google Scholar
  42. Sherman N. (1999) Taking Responsibility for our Emotions. In Paul E.F., Miller F.D., Paul J. (eds.), Responsibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al., pp. 294 - 323Google Scholar
  43. B.C. Stahl. Accountability and Reflective Responsibility in Information Systems. In C. Zielinski, P. Duquenoy and K. Kimppa, editors, The Information Society: Emerging Landscapes. pp. 51–68, (IFIP WG 9.2 proceedings) Springer, New York, 2006Google Scholar
  44. Stahl B.C. (2004a). Responsible Management of Information Systems. Idea Group Publishing, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  45. B.C. Stahl. Information, Ethics, and Computers: The Problem of Autonomous Moral Agents. Minds and Machines, 14: 67–83, 2004bGoogle Scholar
  46. Trigeaud J.M. (1999). L’homme coupable - Critique d’une philosophie de la responsabilité. Editions Bière, BordeauxGoogle Scholar
  47. Velasquez M. (1991) Why Corporations Are Not Morally Responsible for Anything They Do. In May L., Hoffman S. (eds.), Collective Responsibility: Fife Decades of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., Savage, Maryland, pp. 111–131Google Scholar
  48. R.J. Wallace. Responsibility and the Moral Sentiment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England (1996)Google Scholar
  49. Weizenbaum J. (1976) Computer Power and Human Reason. W. H. Freeman and Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Centre for Computing and Social ResponsibilityDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations