Caring for dependents creates injustice. Caring done by robots Caring done by humans Not done at all New theory to extend justice to carers and cared for. Great injustice, suffering and even death to dependents. Not done because no-one is dependent. Cognitive improvement technologies are used for therapy, and for enhancement where complexity is growing faster than human cognitive powers. Where are we going? * Rawlsian justice achievable. Rawlsian justice achievable Non- Rawlsian justice?
Robots for human interaction Caring Companionship Creaturely comforters Monitoring 1. Look, feel and react enough like humans or animals to trigger human emotions and attachment. 2. BUT can never be bored, insulted, degraded or abused because they are not persons, or sentient.
Bristol Robotics Laboratory Bio-engineering and intelligent autonomous systems CHRIS project http://18.104.22.168/gallery.html Empathy in humanoids ICub II T,Genoa, ItalyBERT 1 BRL, UK CHRIS FP7 funded Cooperative Human Robot Interaction Systems.
Robot gesturing Bristol Robotics Laboratory: bio-engineering and intelligent autonomous systems The basic BERT torso was designed and built by Elumotion Ltd in Partnership with BRL. Elumotion Ltd PhD Researcher Paul Bremner Supervisory Team Prof. C. Melhuish Dr. Tony Pipe Dr. M. Fraser Dr S. Subramanian ANDy Anthropomorphic Human Dynamics Adam Spiers – mathematical modelling of human motion in order to program human-like movement in robots.
http://robotic.media.mit.edu/project s/robots/leonardo/em/em.html Stan Winston Studios Stan Winston Artistic Lead Lindsay MacGowan Technical Lead Richard Landon The Team Jon Dawe Trevor Hensley Matt Heimlich Al Sousa Kathy Macgowan Michael Ornealez Amy Whetsel Joe Reader Grady Holder Rob Ramsdell John Cherevka Rodrick Khachatoorian Kurt Herbel Rich Haugen Keith Marbory Annabelle Troukins Personal Robots Group Professor Cynthia Breazeal Graduate Students Matt Berlin Andrew "Zoz" Brooks Jesse Gray Guy Hoffman Jeff Lieberman Andrea Lockerd Thomaz Dan Stiehl Alumni Matt Hancher Hans Lee Leonardo is funded in part by the Things That Think (TTT) and Digital Life (DL) consortia, a DARPA MARS grant, and a ONR YIP grant. Contributing Sponsors Stan Winston Studio (DL), NevenVision Inc. (TTT), Toyota (TTT) External Collaborators NASA JSC, Navy Research Lab. Animator Fardad Faridi
Robots with emotion Actoids http://www.ed.ams.eng.osaka- u.ac.jp/research/0007/ http://www.ed.ams.eng.osaka- u.ac.jp/research/0007/http://www.ed.ams.eng.osaka- u.ac.jp/research/0007/ CHRIS project http://22.214.171.124/gallery.html Leonardo at play http://robotic.media.mit.edu/projects/robots/leonardo/tea mwork/teamwork.html http://robotic.media.mit.edu/projects/robots/leonardo/tea mwork/teamwork.html http://robotic.media.mit.edu/projects/robots/leonardo/tea mwork/teamwork.html Heart robot and links http://www.heartrobot.org.uk/ http://www.heartrobot.org.uk/ Heart robot and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7532162.stm
Robots with attitude http://www.bostondynamics.com/content/sec.php?sect ion=robotics http://www.bostondynamics.com/content/sec.php?sect ion=robotics http://www.bostondynamics.com/content/sec.php?sect ion=robotics http://cs.stanford.edu/group/roadrunner/ http://cs.stanford.edu/group/roadrunner/ Ecobot II Bristol Ioannis Ieropoulos Sludge-fed robot chases lights. http://www.brl.uwe.ac.uk/projects/ ecobot/ecobot%20II/index.html
RAWLS – Justice as Fairness 1) People in the Original Position, behind the Veil of Ignorance choose social principles to underlie the society they will live in. 2) Two principles emerge from this imaginary social contract procedure.
Veil of Ignorance People do not know the social position they will hold in the future society but they DO know they are ‘fully cooperating members of society over a complete lifetime’ - that is, they are not disabled or dependent in any way, except by temporary minor illness. So Rawls’ theory ‘postpones’ justice for dependent people until after the basic principles have been chosen. He includes it then as something for the legislature to manage.
Rawls’ Two Principles 1) Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and 2) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b) they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantages members of society. Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (Cambridge, MA. London, UK: Belknap Press). P42.
Rawls’s exclusion of the dependent Stein – Two Moral Powers: sense of justice, conception of the good. (Rawls, J. (2001) Justice As Fairness: a Restatement (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press) p18,19.) Nussbaum – OP, know they are “fully cooperating over a normal life” “So let’s add that all citizens are fully cooperating members of society over the course of a complete life. This means that everyone has sufficient intellectual powers to play a normal part in society, and no one suffers from unusual needs that are especially difficult to fulfil, for example, unusual and costly medical requirements.” Rawls, J. (1980) Kantian constructivism in moral theory Dewey Lectures Journal of Philosophy 77 pp515-571. “Since we begin from the idea of society as a fair system of cooperation, we assume that persons as citizens have all the capacities that enable them to be cooperating members of society. This is done to achieve a clear and uncluttered view of what, for us, is the fundamental question of political justice: namely, what is the most appropriate conception of justice for specifying the terms of social cooperation between citizens regarded as free and equal, and as normal and fully cooperating members of society over a complete life?” (Rawls, J. (1966) Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press)
“But the postponement is not innocent, clearly. The parties are being asked to imagine themselves as if they represent citizens who really are “fully cooperating…over a complete life” and thus as if citizens have no needs for care in times of extreme dependency. This fiction obliterates much that characterizes human life, and obliterates, as well, the continuity between the so-called normal and people with lifelong impairments.” P127 Nussbaum 1: postponement of disability in Rawls Nussbaum, M. (2006) Frontiers of Justice (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press) p127.
“More generally, care for children, elderly people, and people with mental and physical disabilities is a major part of the work that needs to be done in any society, and in most societies it is a source of great injustice. Any theory of justice needs to think about the problem from the beginning, in the design of the basic institutional structure, and particularly in its theory of the primary goods.” Nussbaum 2: dependency and injustice Nussbaum, M. (2006) Frontiers of Justice ( Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press) p127.
Caring for dependants creates injustice. Caring done by robots Caring done by humans Not done at all New theory to extend justice to carers and cared for. Great injustice, suffering and even death to dependents. Not done because no-one is dependent. Cognitive improvement technologies are used for therapy, and for enhancement where complexity is growing faster than human cognitive powers. … any society? * Rawlsian justice achievable. Rawlsian justice achievable Non- Rawlsian justice?
Two Caveats and one Argument Ghettoisation – use of robots might be like institutionalising again. Creating a new prison. Selection would also eliminate many but not all dependants (accidents will happen). Argument FOR: P1: It is a good to be treated justly. P2: You can only be treated justly if we change your abilities to resemble ours. P3: The good of being treated justly justifies (outweighs your preference not to change) changing you. C1.: It is justified to change you.
Objections 1) Some people may not want to have their cognitive ability changed. Coercion? 1) They may feel that justice is about treating them justly however they are. Acceptable?
Scenario 1: majority enhancement Complexity increases so that 90% of us require enhancement to keep up. OR Cognitive enhancement of the majority enables society to increase complexity?
Scenario 2: Total dependency reduction Eliminating dependency would mean not just increasing healthspan, and modifying the cognitively challenged, but also potentially reducing dependency in childhood.
A minimally dependent community? Negligible loss of independence with aging. Excellent healthcare and technological support for accident victims. Highly selective reproduction and disease prevention. Genetic development for shortened dependency in childhood. Technological childrearing to minimize dependency on adults. A group of adults in their prime, unconnected by relationships of care, confident of freedom to choose their own life plans.