Abstract
To feel comfortable allowing healthcare robots to interact with human beings, we must ensure that they act in an ethically responsible manner, following an acceptable ethical principle(s). Giving robots ethical principles to guide their behavior results in their being ethical agents; yet we argue that it is the human designers, not the robots, who should be held responsible for their actions. Towards the end of designing ethical autonomous robots that function in the domain of healthcare, we have developed a method, through an automated dialogue with an ethicist, for discovering the ethically relevant features of possible actions that could be taken by a robot, with an appropriate range of intensities, prima facie duties to either maximize or minimize those features, as well as decision principles that should be used to guide its behavior. Our vision of how an ethical robot assistant would behave demonstrates that an ethical principle is used to select the best action at each moment, rather than just determine whether a particular action is acceptable or not. Further, we maintain that machine ethics research gives us a fresh perspective on ethics. We believe that there is a good chance that this research may lead to surprising new insights, and therefore breakthroughs, in ethical theory.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a fuller discussion of the merits and problems of the two senses of free will, see Anderson [5].
- 2.
We did not allow a maximum violation of the duty of respect for autonomy, since we would not force a patient to take a recommended treatment. Just trying again to change the patient’s mind is a minimal violation of respect for autonomy.
References
Anderson M, Anderson S (2008) EthEl: toward a principled ethical eldercare robot. In: Proceedings of conference on human-robot interaction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 2008
Anderson M, Anderson S (2013) GenEth: a general ethical dilemma analyzer. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international symposium on logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning, Ayia Napa, Cyprus, May 2013
Anderson M, Anderson SL (2010) Robot be good. Sci Am Mag
Anderson M, Anderson S, Armen C (2006) MedEthEx: a prototype medical ethics advisor. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence, Boston, Massachusetts, August 2006
Anderson S (1981) The libertarian conception of freedom. Int Philos Q 21(4):391–404
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1979) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bentham J (1780) Introduction to principles of morals and legislation
Hume D (1748) An enquiry concerning human understanding. In: Selby-Bigge LA (ed) Section 8, Part I. Clarendon Press, p. 95 (1894)
Moor JH (2006) The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):18–21
Rawls J (1951) Outline for a decision procedure for ethics. Philos Rev 60
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Ross WD (1930) The right and the good. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Anderson, S.L., Anderson, M. (2015). Towards a Principle-Based Healthcare Agent. In: van Rysewyk, S., Pontier, M. (eds) Machine Medical Ethics. Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, vol 74. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08108-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08108-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08107-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08108-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)