Advertisement

A Model for Regulating of Ethical Preferences in Machine Ethics

  • Zohreh Baniasadi
  • Xavier Parent
  • Charles Max
  • Marcos Cramer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10901)

Abstract

Relying upon machine intelligence with reductions in the supervision of human beings, requires us to be able to count on a certain level of ethical behavior from it. Formalizing ethical theories is one of the plausible ways to add ethical dimensions to machines. Rule-based and consequence-based ethical theories are proper candidates for Machine Ethics. It is debatable that methodologies for each ethical theory separately might result in an action that is not always justifiable by human values. This inspires us to combine the reasoning procedure of two ethical theories, deontology and utilitarianism, in a utilitarian-based deontic logic which is an extension of STIT (Seeing To It That) logic. We keep the knowledge domain regarding the methodology in a knowledge base system called IDP. IDP supports inferences to examine and evaluate the process of ethical decision making in our formalization. To validate our proposed methodology we perform a Case Study for some real scenarios in the domain of robotics and automatous agents.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, C.: Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford Scholarship Online, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, M., Anderson, S.L.: Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arkoudas, K., Bringsjord, S., Bello, P.: Toward ethical robots via mechanized deontic logic. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Machine Ethics (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balbiani, P., Herzig, A., Troquard, N.: Alternative axiomatics and complexity of deliberative STIT theories. J. Philos. Log. 37(4), 387–406 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belnap, N.D.: Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bringsjord, S., Arkoudas, K., Bello, P.: Toward a general logicist methodology for engineering ethically correct robots. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21(4), 38–44 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broersen, J.: Deontic epistemic stit logic distinguishing modes of mens rea. J. Appl. Log. 9(2), 127–152 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denecker, M., Ternovska, E.: A logic of nonmonotone inductive definitions. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. (TOCL) 9(2), 14 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Denecker, M., Vennekens, J.: Building a knowledge base system for an integration of logic programming and classical logic. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 71–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89982-2_12CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabbay, D., Horty, J., Parent, X., van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L.: Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goble, L.: Multiplex semantics for deontic logic. Nord. J. Philos. Log. 5(2), 113–134 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodall, N.: Ethical decision making during automated vehicle crashes. Transp. Res. Rec. J Transp. Res. Board 0(2424), 58–65 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodall, N.J.: Machine ethics and automated vehicles. In: Meyer, G., Beiker, S. (eds.) Road Vehicle Automation. LNM, pp. 93–102. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05990-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harsanyi, J.C.: Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. In: Harsanyi, J.C. (ed.) Essays on Ethics, Social Behavior, and Scientific Explanation, pp. 6–23. Springer, Dordrecht (1976).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9327-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herzig, A., Schwarzentruber, F.: Properties of logics of individual and group agency. Adv. Modal Log. 7, 133–149 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horty, J., Belnap, N.: The deliberative stit: a study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. J. Philos. Log. 24, 583–644 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, D.G.: Computer ethics. In: The Philosophy of Computing and Information, p. 65 (1985)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lang, J., van der Torre, L.: From belief change to preference change. In: ECAI, vol. 178, pp. 351–355 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lorini, E.: Temporal logic and its application to normative reasoning. J. Appl. Non-Class. Log. 23(4), 372–399 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lorini, E., Sartor, G.: A STIT logic analysis of social influence. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pp. 885–892. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mariën, M., Wittocx, J., Denecker, M.: The IDP framework for declarative problem solving. In: Search and Logic: Answer Set Programming and SAT, pp. 19–34 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moor, J.M.: The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21(4), 18–21 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prior, A.N.: Past, Present and Future, vol. 154. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shafer-Landau, R.: Ethical Theory: An Anthology, vol. 13. Wiley, West Sussex (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tzafestas, S.G.: Roboethics: a branch of applied ethics. Roboethics: A Navigating Overview. ISCASE, vol. 79, pp. 65–79. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21714-7_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wittocx, J., De Cat, B., Denecker, M.: The IDP system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wooldridge, M.: Computationally grounded theories of agency. In: 2000 Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, pp. 13–20. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 5, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, London (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zohreh Baniasadi
    • 1
  • Xavier Parent
    • 1
  • Charles Max
    • 1
  • Marcos Cramer
    • 1
  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Center of Security and TrustUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg CityLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations