Abstract
Which moral theory should be the basis of algorithmic artificial ethical agents? In a series of papers, Anderson and Anderson and Anderson (Proc AAAI, 2008[1]; AI Mag 28(4):15–26, 2007 [2]; Minds Mach 17(1)1–10, 2007 [3]) argue that the answer is W. D. Ross’s account of prima facie duties. The Andersons claim that Ross’s account best reflects the complexities of moral deliberation, incorporates the strengths of teleological and deontological approaches, and yet is superior to both of them insofar as it allows for “needed exceptions.” We argue that the Andersons are begging the question about “needed exceptions” and defend Satisficing Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism (SHAU). SHAU initially delivers results that are just as reflective, if not more reflective than, Ross’s account when it comes to the subtleties of moral decision-making. Furthermore, SHAU delivers the ‘right’ (that is, intuitively correct) judgments about well-established practical cases, reaching the same verdict as a prima facie duty-based ethic in the particular health-care case explored by the Andersons (a robot designed to know when to over-ride an elderly patient’s autonomy).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The extent to which the artificial agents’ moral decisions must agree with the patient’s religious views is a difficult matter, and one we will not address here.
References
Anderson M, Anderson SL (2008) EthEl: toward a principled ethical eldercare robot. In: Eldercare: new solutions to old problems. In: Presented at the proceedings of AAAI fall symposium on AI, Washington, D.C. homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~comqkd/9-Anderson-final.pdf
Anderson M, Anderson SL (2007) Machine ethics: creating an ethical intelligent agent. AI Mag 28(4):15–26. http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/viewArticle/2065
Anderson M, Anderson SL (2007) The status of machine ethics: a report from the AAAI symposium. Minds Mach 17(1):1–10
Beauchamp TJ, Childress JF (1979) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York
Ross WD (1930) The right and the good. Hackett Pub. Co, Indianapolis/Cambridge
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
Lucas, J., Comstock, G. (2015). Do Machines Have Prima Facie Duties?. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08108-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08107-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08108-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)