Affiliation:
1. University of Helsinki
Abstract
It is typically argued that robots cannot meet the conditions of moral responsibility. Thus, where robots are involved in morally significant harm, troubling responsibility gaps are thought to arise. In this paper, it is argued that the responsibility gap concept is itself founded on false premises—that traditional settings afford us with clear-cut moral culprits whom it is fair and beneficial to hold accountable, and that our responsibility practices are straightforwardly morally and socially desirable. There are morally and socially desirable outcomes of our responsibility practices worth fighting for—dependable, responsible social behavior, acts of repair, restoration, and reformation. However, not only can these outcomes be extended beyond traditional contexts to technologically advanced domains, they can be enhanced as well.