Abstract
Nowadays, we are witnessing an acceleration of the debate on animal legal rights. The discussion has its legislative counterpart: a growing number of states have passed legislation widening animal legal rights or even granting them personhood. In comparison, the debate on artificial agents’ personhood is only theoretical, although some legislation recognizes the problem of autonomous artificial agents.
One may argue that, because of the respective strengths of the arguments made, animals win their legal rights and machines don’t. Arguments for animal rights are simply more convincing and better grounded in this hitherto ethical debate. And I fully concur: although philosophical arguments for artificial agents’ personhood exist, machines sufficiently intelligent to be personified artificial agents do not.
However, I will argue that artificial agents (e.g., computer programs) will nevertheless become commonly recognized as new non-human subjects faster than animals do. I will argue that this will not be the consequence of a sudden, revelatory acceptance of infocentric ethics, but rather the result of a strict anthropocentric efficiency calculation. Beside philosophical arguments, I will try to show the most probable scenario for personification of artificial agents.
From the perspective of infocentrism, ethics may best be seen as having a cognitive or informational core that, combined with an assumption that mind and intelligence can be defined and replicated as computational systems, results in the conclusion that what matters for ethics is information processes, despite their “natural” or “artificial” origin. This perspective is often contrasted with biocentric and ecocentric ethics. Nevertheless, I will argue that proponents of biocentrism and ecocentrism should endorse granting personhood to artificial agents. I will try to show that this expansion of the circle of entities treated by law as subjects instead of objects, although derived from an anthropocentric point of view, may have a positive impact on advocacy for the rights of animals or even, as proposed by “deep green” ethicists, of non-animated parts of the environment.
Animals will lose the race for personhood against the machines. But this machine victory will not be the animals’ defeat. To the contrary: it might be beneficial for all living entities.
The writing of this paper was supported by the Polish National Science Centre (research project No 2014/15/N/HS5/01861, PRELUDIUM 8).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term is coined in a similar manner to “green ethics.” It refers to a chemical element used as fundamental building block for a majority of modern microprocessors.
- 2.
In the literature, some question whether the creation of intelligent entities that are programmed not to feel is possible e.g., the being-in-the-world argument made by H. Dreyfus (2007), and, if it is possible, whether is it ethically admissible.
- 3.
Peculium is “the property held by a person (as a wife, child, slave) under the potestas, manus, or mancipium of another as his own private property either by the permission of the paterfamilias or master or by the rules of law but becoming with certain exceptions the property of the paterfamilas or master at his pleasure.” (Merriam-Webster 2003).
References
Arkin R.C. 2009. Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots. Boca Raton/London/New York: CRC Press.
Block N. 1978. Troubles with functionalism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9: 261–325.
Chopra, S., L. White. 2011. A legal theory for autonomous artificial agents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dennett D. 1997. When Hal kills, who’s to blame? In Computer ethics, Hal’s legacy: 2001’s computer as dream and reality, ed. D. Stork, 351–365. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dreyfus H.L. 2007. Why Heideggerian AI Failed and how Fixing it would Require making it more Heideggerian. Philosophical Psychology 20: 247–268.
Elżanowski A., T. Pietrzykowski. 2013. Zwierzęta jako nieosobowe podmioty prawa. Forum Prawnicze February: 18–27.
Floridi L., J.W. Sanders. 2004. On morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machine 14: 349–379.
Gaffoglio L. 2014. Conceden un hábeas corpus a una orangutana. La Nacion. http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1754353-conceden-un-habeas-corpus-a-una-orangutana-del-zoologico-porteno/. Accessed June 5, 2015.
Grant J. 2010. High-frequency trading: Up against a bandsaw. Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b2373a36-b6c2-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2SXdwc Arr/. Accessed April 21, 2015.
Karnow C.E.A, (1996), Liability for distributed artificial intelligences. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 11: 147–183.
Lim D. 2014. Brain simulation and personhood: A concern with the Human Brain Project. Ethics and Information Technology 16: 77–89.
Markram H. 2012. The human brain project: A report to the European Commission. https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/documents/10180/17648/TheHBPReport_LR.pdf/18e5747e-10af-4bec-9806-d03aead57655/. Accessed June 5, 2016.
Merriam-Webster. 2003. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peculium/. Accessed Oct 30, 2016.
Pagallo U. 2001. Killers, fridges, and slaves: A legal journey in robotics. AI and Society 26: 347–354.
Searle J. 1992. The rediscovery of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
Singer P. 1975. Animal liberation: A new ethics for our Treatment of animals, New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Taylor R. 2001. A step at a time: New Zealand’s progress towards hominid rights. Animal Law Review at Lewis & Clark School of Law 7: 35–43.
Teubner G. 2006. Rights of non-humans? Electronic agents and animals as new actors in politics and law. Journal of Law and Society 33: 497–521.
Torrance S. 2013. Artificial agents and the expanding ethical circle. AI and Society 28: 399–414.
Waldau P. 2011. Animal rights: What everyone needs to know, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Michalczak, R. (2017). Animals’ Race Against the Machines. In: Kurki, V., Pietrzykowski, T. (eds) Legal Personhood: Animals, Artificial Intelligence and the Unborn. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 119. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53462-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53462-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53461-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53462-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)