The Ethics of Robotics: Human Replacement and Moral Considerations

This essay delves into the ethical considerations surrounding the potential replacement of humans by robots in various aspects of life, examining the virtues of transparency, adaptability, and kindness in the context of robotic actions. It explores the moral implications of robots' actions, particularly their lack of understanding of complex human emotions and social norms. The essay applies Kant's categorical imperative, arguing against the replacement of humans based on the preservation of human dignity and the inherent value of human beings. It contrasts this with the utilitarian ethical theory, which might favor the use of robots based on cost-effectiveness and efficiency. The analysis concludes that, while robots may offer advantages in specific environments, their replacement of humans is ethically questionable, emphasizing the importance of human judgment, reasoning, and moral comprehension.

Should robots replace humans in future and whether the actions of Robots will encompass
moral standards
a) Virtues
i) Transparency- refers to lack of hidden agendas that is accompanied by the availability
of information needed for decision making, cooperation and collaboration; for robots
it can technically means complete predictability of computer system or program.
ii) Adaptability- refers to the ability to adjust to changing circumstances and
environment in order to gain advantage in any situation thus allowing learning from
experience to be a better competitor.
iii) Kindness- the quality of being considerate, generous and friendly to others thus
fostering respect when engaging in actions affecting others.
b) Morality of robot’s actions in respect to virtues
There is lack of transparency in understanding how the computer algorithms work to enable
robots perform specific tasks (Stubbs, Hinds and Wettergreen, p. 3). The robots will not be able
to inform operators what went wrong in case they make mistakes. Scientist have argued that the
mistakes made by robots are at times difficult to understand due to complicated algorithms used.
Similarly, the machines lack adaptability which is a basic human talent that help improvise when
face tricky situations. Furthermore, Coca-Vila (p. 59) argued that the robots may not chose the
best action for dilemmatic situations that follow social norms since they follow programmed
rules. One attribute of robots is lack of feelings and imaginations that are critical for showing
kindness. Recent report indicate that robots will soon be servants at homes, hospital and
industries thus offering close interactions with humans. One major limitation of robots is lack of

intelligence to understand what is kind or good and what is not. As a result, they might not
recognize that injuries or destroying humans is not kindest thing to do.
c) Applying Kant’s categorical imperative rule
i) Basic ideas is the rules that commands that one should engage in activity that would be
comfortable for everyone else to do. This means that there is no exception for oneself. According
to the rule, people must avoid maxims that harm themselves and others. In this case, robots must
not be incorporated to work on environment that is likely to cause injuries to humans. Kant’s
formula of autonomy recognizes rights of others and compels that what is required for one
person must be required for all (Timmermann, p. 72).
ii) The general rule is that humans must be treated as an end in itself. Thus humans have value
and does not depend on the actions that make one happy or lives of others better. Even if robots
make work easier in challenging environments, that does not mean the humans have lost value
and employees be replaced by such machines.
iii) No. The general rule upholds the value of human dignity. The humans cannot be
represented by relative ends such as wants, ambitions, desires and hopes. Therefore, the
aspirations of technology of AI and robots must aim at upholding human dignity and not
devising actions based on the outcome rules. Even though robots can increase profitability of
organizations, its use must not degrade human dignity.
iv) No since the categorical imperative are based on unconditional commands. This means that
certain types of actions are prohibited by general rule even if such actions bring more happiness
than alternative. This is in harmony with categorical imperative that indicate that the goals of
actions must respect human beings as well as being rational to be done by everyone else.

v) Yes, the fundamental purpose of robots is to alleviate risk that are prone to humans if they
engage in certain activity. For example, in mining, the temperature at deeper grounds might be
too high while the oxygen supply may be too low to support human life. In such circumstances,
the robots can work instead of humans to prevent injuries and deaths related to collapse of
mining quarry surfaces.
v) Robots to replace humans is unethical according to Kant’s ethical system. The incorporations
of AI and robotics in self-driven cars, military operations and many other applications raises
concern of whether the technology should replace human functions. The Kantian ethics establish
deontological rules that must be followed and is not dependent on achieving greater public good
(Van Staveren, p. 22). The robots though cost effective and offer speedy processing, they lack
reasoning and complex cognitive ability to make appropriate judgement that limit harm. The
human moral reasoning is based judgement, emotions, comprehension and experience, the robots
lack these capabilities.
d) The utilitarian ethical theory is based on consequences of an action (Jones, Felps and Bigley,
p. 137). Therefore, the outcomes are used to gauge whether the actions are right or wrong. This
theory therefore considers consider actions that better things to be morally right. Since the robots
work effectively in standardized operations, the utilitarian arguments will therefore favor the use
of robots in industry on the basis of cost effective reasoning. According to Conway, P. and
Gawronski (p. 216), the use of autonomous weapons to save many lives is favored by utilitarian
theory. However, the Kantian theory established deontological rules that favors preservation of
human dignity irrespective of potential beneficial outcomes of the robots. The Kantian ethics
recognizes human capabilities such as judgement, deliberation, reasoning and self-reflection as

important elements for the formation of moral rules capable of universalization. Such attributes
are non-existent in robotics and therefore robots cannot replace humans.

References
Coca-Vila, I., 2018. Self-driving cars in dilemmatic situations: An approach based on the theory
of justification in criminal law. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 12(1), pp.59-82.
Conway, P. and Gawronski, B., 2013. Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision
making: a process dissociation approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(2),
p.216.
Jones, T.M., Felps, W. and Bigley, G.A., 2007. Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions:
The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), pp.137-155.
Stubbs, K., Hinds, P.J. and Wettergreen, D., 2007. Autonomy and common ground in human-
robot interaction: A field study. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(2).
Timmermann, J. (2006). Value without Regress: Kant's ‘Formula of
Humanity’Revisited. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 69-93.
Van Staveren, I., 2007. Beyond utilitarianism and deontology: Ethics in economics. Review of
Political Economy, 19(1), pp.21-35.