RSS Feed

OE Companion Discussion Group

That might take us to an entire different set of moral questions. One among my first questions about a robotic designed for BDSM interactions with people can be to ask about the definitions of injure and hurt from the robot’s perspective, and how the robots will accurately identify those conditions in folks. How will a robotic determine consent? Some philosophers (e.g. Thomas Hobbes) say that what is done with one’s consent can’t be an injury. That can’t be right, or at the very least it shouldn’t be how we program our machines. The sex robots we have right now solely attempt to move their joints and head; human beings are largely more powerful than they are (at the very least, as of now) so physically a intercourse robot could not injure a human being, at the least not past the extent that the human being wants to be injured. Which means the relaxation, or a minimum of a nervous and emotional throughout intercourse helps to cut back the expansion of a technique, may be a part of the answer. In the first legislation the phrase ‘harm’ stands in for a lot of centuries of philosophical discussion, and so a solution here hinges on what we imply by that word. BDSM intercourse robots do not violate Asimov’s First Law of Robotics unless we predict that either people who interact in human-human BDSM hurt themselves and others, that or robot-human BDSM would have totally different results than human-human BDSM.