Why Indirect Harms do not Support Social Robot Rights

13Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

There is growing evidence to support the claim that we react differently to robots than we do to other objects. In particular, we react differently to robots with which we have some form of social interaction. In this paper I critically assess the claim that, due to our tendency to become emotionally attached to social robots, permitting their harm may be damaging for society and as such we should consider introducing legislation to grant social robots rights and protect them from harm. I conclude that there is little evidence to support this claim and that legislation in this area would restrict progress in areas of social care where social robots are a potentially valuable resource.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sweeney, P. (2022). Why Indirect Harms do not Support Social Robot Rights. Minds and Machines, 32(4), 735–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09593-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free