Speaker Notes:

Introduction:

  1. Look at the world around you.
  2. Amount of mechanical work that needs to be done
  3. Advances in technology and programming
  4. Putting the two together: robots are an imminent solution.
  5. What are robots?
  6. Current definition: automaton: a mechanism that can move automatically (worldnetweb.princeton.edu)
  7. This definition does not imply life or rights. It will need to be redefined if robots start to be considered as life forms.
  8. Today’s presentation will address the issue of robots in terms of life and their place in society. Some questions that will be developed include the following:
  9. Will robots become more and more like human beings, and become life forms?
  10. Does the invention of robots challenge the traditional view of God and change religion?
  11. Should robots have rights, duties, and certain forms of treatment?

Effects of robots on society:

  1. Robots will affect society regardless of whether they are considered life or not, because of their capacity for automatic work. They are already being programmed, designed, and in pilot cases, used to assist in hospitals (delivering meals, carrying bedding, etc.), agriculture, military use, and other industries.
  2. Should man pursue the creation of robots?
  3. From the perspective of convenience and economy, yes. Robots can do more of the manual work, so man will have to do less. Robots, once they are more standard and common, will be less expensive than human labor.
  4. As robots start resembling people more and more, questions are being raised. Some robot producers (Rod Brooks) believe we must see how people react to the presence of robots in order to see how best to integrate robots into society. If robots are determined to be advanced machines, they can easily integrate into society. If robots start being compared to human beings and declared to be life forms, even in absence of a soul, freedom, or life-giving principle, things may get ethically messy.

Treatment of Robots

  1. Guidelines for treatment differ depending on whether or not robots constitute life. If robots are inanimate machines, there are no ethical guidelines for treatment. Treatment is up to each individual owner for the purpose of convenience, efficiency, and productivity.
  2. Some people are, however, starting to emotionally perceive robots as people because they can do some actions people would otherwise do. These people are raising questions about “ethical treatment” of robots. An example is a military commander who saw a robot that has been programmed to step on mines in order to deactivate them. As he saw the robot being dented and affected in the explosion, he considered it to be “inhumane.”

Do robot’s have rights?

  1. Like treatment, this must be defined based on the principle of life. If robots are machines, they have no call to rights or duties. If they are alive, they have rights. If they are a lower life level, they do not have the same rights as human beings. If they are the same life level as humans (rational and sentient), they should have similar rights and similar duties and consequences.
  2. According to a UK study, there is a possibility that over the next 20-50 years, robots will be given rights because they are being made to resemble human beings, even physically, more and more.

Life: What is life, and are robots a form of life?

  1. Definitions of life:
  2. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
  3. A living being, especially a person
  4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence
  5. The soul, or life giving principle, is defined as the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life
  6. Based on these definitions, are robots life (at least currently and in the foreseeable future)? No. Why not?
  7. They are PROGRAMMED. Since the soul is a spiritual reality that is passed on between life forms, man cannot invent it for a robot, as man does not have a source for it.
  8. Since they are programmed, they have no freedom, which is an essential characteristic of human life. Even if robots make apparent choices, they are making that choice because of a pre-programmed chip, with no possibility of acting otherwise.
  9. Since they are programmed, the “intellect” of the robot is really a computer. They have no personal perception to have physical, mental, and spiritual experiences. They react based on programming.

Where does God fit in?

  1. God is creator, giver of life and the soul.
  2. How do robots affect God? Basically, they don’t.
  3. Robots are inanimate objects programmed to react in a manner similar to human beings.
  4. They are invented, not created.
  5. They have no soul, freedom, will, or spiritual dimension, and as such, do not contradict with the traditional understanding of God.
  6. Robots and religion. Along the same line, robots are not a threat to traditional religion or spiritual beliefs. No doubt, however, there will be people who proceed to worship science or consider religion unnecessary. This is not, however, a direct consequence of the invention of robots. It is something that has happened for centuries.

Is Society Ready for Robots?

  1. First of all, if robots are seen as inanimate, advanced machines, yes. Society is ready, and has already been working with advanced technology. This will be one more convenient form.
  2. If the question is whether society is ready to accept robots as another sentient life form, it would still just be another form of what already exists.
  3. Animals are already another form of sentient life
  4. Scientifically, there is the possibility of soon discovering existence of other extraterrestrial life. These are matters of reality, outside of man’s control.
  5. Robots, as a man-made possibility are not threat. If they become a rational, sentient life form, than the possibility and potential of that life form has already existed, and was bound to come out at some point. Again, however, there is nothing right now to justify believing that robots will come “to life.”
  6. Even though robots may start to look like people, and do some actions previously done by people, this does not mean that they become people or are a new life form. It is important to be able to identify the difference between a resemblance of life (looks the same, can do a few of the same things), and life itself, which differs in essence from inanimate material objects. The ESSENCE of robots is mechanical, programmed, and inanimate. It has no soul, no freedom, no personal intellect, no emotions (to mention some faculties of rational, sentient life). If robots in the future somehow gain freedom and are able to reproduce on their own and take on a soul, then maybe the question will come up again. But for now, there is no such question or possibility.

Aristotle: Aristotle supports (and actually helped developed) the traditional understanding of life and the soul:

  1. Living things: animate beings able to move themselves because they have a soul.
  2. Soul: the form of the living thing (its actuality, that in virtue of which it is the kind of living thing that it is).

Thales’ definition of life is a little less specific. He sees life as anything that has the power to act or move itself, and the soul as something endowed with the power of motion. Some people, seeing this definition, could argue that it leaves room for robots as life because they are able to move. Nevertheless, the true philosophical study of Thales rules this out because the principle of motion in a robot does not come from themselves and a power for motion within their essence. It comes from a programmed condition; the power of movement does not belong in essence to the robot, but to the programmed chip assigned to that robot.

Descartes, known for his dualistic philosophy, sees thinking as the main essence of human life. The point of departure of reality is ideas, as perceived by the mind. The mind, or faculty of knowing, is distinct from the body and can separate itself from it. The body, which is only known through the senses can be studied, but there is no guarantee that it actually exists. The soul, is the source of the intellect. Descartes overall conclusions about life, however, are more similar to Aristotle in the sense that he sees the rational soul as the life-giving principle, and sees freedom an essential element for true reason. Therefore, according to the study of Descartes as well, an automated machine that does not have a rational soul and free, unique source of reason, does not qualify to be considered a life form, never mind a rational being like the human person.

Conclusion: Based on these reflections, facts, examples, and philosophies, we can draw the following conclusions:

  1. Robots will have a presence in society and impact daily life.
  2. Based on the traditional understanding of life from the perspective of the soul, and as seen in both Descartes and Aristotle, robots are not animate, living objects, but inanimate machines. Only the definition of life given by Thales would leave any room for robots to be seen as living beings.
  3. The invention of robots does not undermine the power of God, as humans are incapable of providing a soul and freedom.
  4. If robots are not living beings, there are no ethical guidelines in terms of treatment, abuse, rights and duties.
  5. Nevertheless, some people do believe robots should be treated the same way as human beings, and are in support of giving them rights, etc.

End of Presentation…

References (cites shown in powerpoint)

Austin, David F. The Meaning of Life. 2000. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from

BBC News. Robots Could Demand Legal Rights. Dec. 21, 2006. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from

Cohen, Marc. Aristotle on the Soul. 2004. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from

Freitas, Robert A. The Legal Rights of Robots. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from

Garret, Dr. Jan. Argument Analysis Assignment for Phil 303. January 15, 2008. Retrieved 2010 from

Hanlon, Mike. The Inhumane Treatment of Robots. April 8, 2007. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from

O’Connor, Fred. Robots will Become Part of Daily Life. October 17, 2007. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from

PhilosophyPages. Aristotle: Forms and Souls. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from