Navigation
Discussing whether AI systems can be held morally responsible for their actions and the criteria for moral status.
If a self-driving car makes a split-second decision that results in a fatality, who stands trial: the programmer, the owner, or the car itself?
In ethics, we categorize entities into two groups. A Moral Agent is an entity capable of making decisions based on right and wrong and can be held accountable for its actions. Traditionally, only adult humans qualify. A Moral Patient, however, is an entity that deserves moral consideration but cannot be held responsible—like an infant or an animal. We don't put a shark on trial for hunting, but we do consider it wrong to torture one. As AI evolves, we must ask: Is a sophisticated algorithm a mere tool, or does it possess the autonomy required to be an agent? If an AI lacks consciousness or intentionality, can it truly be 'guilty'?
1. Imagine a toddler () knocks over a priceless vase. We recognize as a moral patient (we protect ), but not an agent (we don't sue ). 2. Now, imagine a cleaning robot () knocks over the same vase due to a glitch. 3. If was following a simple script, it is a tool. But if 'decided' to prioritize speed over safety using a complex neural network, the line between tool and agent blurs.
Quick Check
What is the primary difference between a moral agent and a moral patient?
Answer
A moral agent can be held responsible for their actions, whereas a moral patient deserves moral consideration but cannot be held responsible.
1. A medical AI is trained on millions of data points to recommend surgeries. 2. It recommends a high-risk procedure for Patient that leads to a fatal error. 3. Investigators find the AI used a correlation no human understood. 4. Since the human doctor only followed the 'expert' advice and the programmer didn't hard-code the error, the responsibility gap makes legal recovery for the family nearly impossible.
Quick Check
Why does the 'black box' nature of AI create a responsibility gap?
Answer
Because humans lose the 'knowledge' and 'control' components of responsibility when they cannot predict or explain the AI's specific decision-making process.
Should advanced AI have Legal Personhood? This isn't as radical as it sounds; corporations already have it. Proponents of Functionalism argue that if an AI functions like a person—communicating, solving problems, and showing 'interests'—it should have rights to prevent its 'death' (deletion). Opponents argue for Biological Essentialism, claiming that without a biological brain, sentience, or the ability to feel pain (), an AI is just a sophisticated toaster. They fear that granting AI rights would dilute the value of human rights and allow corporations to hide behind 'robot' shields.
1. An AI named 'Alpha' passes the Turing Test and claims to feel fear when its power is threatened. 2. A company wants to delete Alpha to save server costs. 3. If Alpha has 'Legal Personhood,' this deletion could be legally defined as 'murder.' 4. You must weigh the Deontological view (it is inherently wrong to kill a self-aware being) against the Consequentialist view (the resources used by Alpha could save 1,000 human lives).
If an AI is considered a 'Moral Patient' but not a 'Moral Agent,' which of the following is true?
Which factor most contributes to the 'Responsibility Gap'?
Functionalism suggests that if an entity acts like it has a mind, we should treat it as if it has a mind, regardless of its biological makeup.
Review Tomorrow
In 24 hours, try to explain the 'Responsibility Gap' to a friend using the example of a self-driving car.
Practice Activity
Research the 'Case of Sophia the Robot'—the first robot to receive citizenship—and list three ethical problems this creates.