Robot Rights : Right Or Wrong

[amit nigam 0]

hi friends,actually this might seem quiet far fetched but it has come to my mind after reading an article in a very prominent science magazine.i was going through the magazine and i saw that their was this article in which a scientist of United kingdom has suggested that within 20 years their will be something of the sort of "Robot Rights" on the format of human rights and animal rights.i just was thinking since then that how much will it be right doing that...i mean i do not know... i m a strong supporter of developing artificial intelligence, though i am one of the biggest critics also...but the point is that no matter how much advanced robots become in future and start showing human like emotions apart from other things, but still in the end we humans must know that in the end they are just chunks of metal...any kind of emotional attachment with them is i think can be dangerous...and i think talk of robot rights can emerge out of someone's heart who has a certain sort of emotional attachment to them....the point is we cannot penalise some one, some human being, after a certain extent for doing a harm to a robot...my example will make it more clear...suppose i am going through a market and i have a fight with a robot over some issue and suppose by some way, though it is highly impossible, i destroy that robot beyond repair...then what should happen to me...if their are robot roghts then most probably i will be charged with murder and treated accordingly...but i think most of us will agree that what would just have got "killed" is a so called metal piece with no soul and which can be built again...so i think the maximum I, the person who "killed" robot, must be charged with is destruction of someone else's property...i think giving robots some kind of rights and hence some sort of legal protection will be highly irresponsible...what do you guys think...do write..ok bye...

[t3jem 0]

Well, in our day and age i strongly disagree with robot rights (seeing as there are no humanoid robots); however, in the future when they begin making robots more and more human the issue may come up. I do not believe robots that are just programmed to do jobs should be given rights. Robots that can be sorted under the "living" category should be able to have some rights though. For reference, to be "living" one must be able to think or process information, be able to learn, and have a fear of death. If a robot has these three qualities I do believe that it should have some rights to protect it; though, I don't think I would have the murder of such a robot a capital offense as if it were the murder of a human, but you would still have to pay for the damages of course.

[Matrixdudej 0]

robots have no feelings like in the movie I Robot they have no rights and they shouldn't there is no point lol lets say we give them rights their owner abuses that lol whats it going to do? robots shouldnt have rights they have no emotion no feelings

[KR0631 0]

i agree with matrix. since they have no feelings then why should they have rights? but of course people will say you can make them have feelings with all the new technology nowadays.... but the only rights should belong to humans... and of course the animals too.

[friiks 0]

Like matrix said - robots have no feelings so...they have and shouldn't have any rights. I mean cmon...

[husker 0]

Robots don't need any rights. It's not like they can vote and make their own laws. It's a machine! That would be like giving the computer rights. "Anyone would turns off the computer by holding in the power button will be sentenced to one month in jail." It just doesn't make sense(but if it does make sense to someone, feel free to try to make it a law). Robots can't think or make decisions and do some crucial things people can do. They can't really apply their knowledge to anything or analyze and understand what the data they know means. If they can do more than just be programmed information, then we may possible need laws, but there is no need currently. Plus, robots haven't even become a large part of our society yet. It's too early to be discussing questions about robots. But it's not a bad idea that may be taken into consideration at some point during the Earth's existence.

[Thorned Rose 0]

I don't think that this is a simple yes or know question. As they currently stand, then definitely not. But you have to remember that the human brain and body is a form of organic machine. What happens if at some point in the future, robots are built to be physically exactly the same as humans just exchanging inorganic material for organic. They will think and feel like humans and you have to concede at some point that a thinking feeling being, whether organic or machine deserves *some* rights. Maybe if we replicate humans on an inorganic level, they will have souls. Maybe they won't. I don't think that question will be able to be answered until a robot is built like that and scientists find a way of measuring the soul. Even now however, there is thought along the lines that machines may be able to have souls. The "ghost in the machine" as it's called.If it got to that point - even if they didn't have souls - but still thought and felt, then I definitely think they should have at least some rights. But maybe I'm just too bigger Isaac Asimov fan

[God-Of-Earth 0]

Yes the human brain is an orgainc machine. But humans are living creatures and as such have rights. Not because they make their own laws but because they are living breading creatures. This is also seen in animal rights although that is a compleatly different debate. Robots are a machine and even if they have the most advanced A.I that we could ever imagine, they would never be living machines so therfore will never have rights.

[amit nigam 0]

hello friends,its nice to hear from you people and see the varying views of all you people, from the firm yes to the firm no.actually as some of you have pointed that it is not important right now but one day when robots start to think and feel exactly like humans then it will be required. My point is that no matter how equal in their thinking and working robots become to humans but still we need to remeber that they are machines created by us. it should never happen that we start giving them rights and slowly and slowly because of them they get out of control. you know these kind of things happen. you give some rights to someone and slowly and slowly they start crying for more and more and more.but still these are my views....lets see what others think...ok bye...keep writing...

[adriantc 0]

robots have no feelings like in the movie I Robot they have no rights and they shouldn't there is no point lol lets say we give them rights their owner abuses that lol whats it going to do? robots shouldnt have rights they have no emotion no feelings

I think you are wrong... Animals don't have feelings (or at least not as we have), but they still have some rights. As much as I think machines will be our doom I think they must have certain rights.
Not to mention the fact that having no feelings whatsoever means a machine has a perfect judgment without any subjective thinking. There are lot of jobs in the world that require this no-feeling policy

Yes the human brain is an orgainc machine. But humans are living creatures and as such have rights. Not because they make their own laws but because they are living breading creatures. This is also seen in animal rights although that is a compleatly different debate.
Robots are a machine and even if they have the most advanced A.I that we could ever imagine, they would never be living machines so therfore will never have rights.

Let's say in a couple of years medicine will be able to create a fully functional, total independent heart. If you implant it into a human he is no longer a human, but half human half machine with most important part of the body (besides the brain) non-organic. Does that make him less human, wouldn't he have the same rights as the rest of mankind? I'm sure in 100 years (if we don't destroy ourself by global warming or war, or being destroyed by an asteroid) we will have many parts of our organic bodies replaced by machines. Today a better hand, tomorrow a better eye and so on. We will no longer be just human... we will be some sort of cyborg. And that is not SF it will happen sooner or later!

[cangor 0]

Robots, while some have been programmed to show emotions, do not truely feel emotions, it's just a bunch of electrical signals. Then again, you could say we're the same way, but whatever. We create robots to do jobs for us, so, no, they shouldn't really have "rights," depending on what rights mean, but if you develop a robot to do something really, really nasty then just make it not have emotions and not be sensient. If you create robots that are identical to humans, then, well, that's just kinda useless.

[electriic ink 1]

actually as some of you have pointed that it is not important right now but one day when robots start to think and feel exactly like humans then it will be required.

Why would anybody be so stupid as to create one? Nobody would buy a robot which feels things because it would be like supporting a new member of the family. Once you create a robot that has emotions, you run the risk of people wanting designer robots as "children" in lieu of a baby. It's like asking for extinction.

 

Animals don't have feelings (or at least not as we have), but they still have some rights. As much as I think machines will be our doom I think they must have certain rights.

The difference there is that animals are living creatures with emotions. If you hit a wolf, it gets angry and fights back. Until robots adhere to all seven life processes, they should not be given rights:

 

Movement

Respiration

Sensivitity (Reacts to Environment)

 

Nutrition (Requires)

Excretion

Reprdocution

Growth

We will no longer be just human... we will be some sort of cyborg

I beg to differ. Pretend tomorrow some scientist announced that he had just created a new form of leg that allowed humans to run at 40MPH. It had been confirmed by independent scientists that it was safe to use on both faetuses and adults providing medicine was taken everyday for a few years. Would you opt to have the treatment? Would you let your unborn child have the treatment?

[zyzzyvette 0]

Until robots adhere to all seven life processes, they should not be given rights:

 

Movement

Respiration

Sensivitity (Reacts to Environment)

 

Nutrition (Requires)

Excretion

Reprdocution

Growth

So... if there was a human being that was born, and their body was 100% efficient and produced no waste, they should be denied human rights? Or an infertile person? o_O I think that's probably a very good biological definition for life (never seen it before, but then I'm not big into biology), but I'm not sure that all of that matters.

 

I think so long as something is intelligent to the point of being self-aware, it should have rights, especially if it has emotions and feel pain. But I guess, since robots don't satisfy that, my answer would be "no" (or "not yet").

[electriic ink 1]

they should be denied human rights? Or an infertile person?

I was referring to the species in general. There will always be some members of any species who have some defects and they are still living because you can see that they are. Those life processes are what all "correct" (sorry to call them that) living things are and until the vast majority of the robot population fit under those categories then they are metal and should have the same rights as metal.

Anybody who plays God and creates a living robot deserves to be cruelly ostracised.

[Yratorm, LightMage 0]

No, I don't think that biological processes are a true definition of 'intelligence' or life.

 

For the moment we are not TRULY creating intelligent robots capable of operating on the same level as a human being or even an animal. So long as a robot cannot add to/drastically alter it's own programming to ADAPT to changes in it's surrounding, even fairly drastic changes, it cannot be called 'alive'.

 

However, if a robot were built that had the same 'intellectual' complexity as a human, with the same store of memories of it's 'life' with the same potential for growth and perhaps the ability to dream great dreams - why then, to kill it would indeed be to 'take a life'.

__________________

Unless you had a backup system somewhere where all it's brain processes were automatically stored.

 

For example, if you had a backup copy (somehow) of me, and then killed me and activated the backup copy, would you then truly have killed me????

 

Ah, the corridors of logic. Must they be so twisted? No, no, just kidding.