CHAPTER 4 something from itself, a bringing-forth or poieses.
A flower blossoming or fading in
The Human Person Flourishing in terms of Science and Technology
A.Technology as a Way of Revealing
A German philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote an essay entitled “The Question
Concerning Technology” which addresses modern technology and its essence as an
instrumental way of revealing the world. He goes beyond the traditional view of
technology as machines and technical procedures. Moreover, he tries to think
through the essence of technology as a way in which humans encounter entities such
as nature, self, and, indeed, everything. That is to say, that modern technology is
conceived as means to achieve ends. As instrumental, the essence of technology
concerns causality. A deeper look into causality reveals that the end is the beginning;
a cause is that to which something is indebted and the purpose for which an
instrument is designed is the primary cause of its coming into being.
Heidegger’s understanding of technology was based on its essence. First, the
essence of technology is not something we make; it is a mode of being, or of
revealing. This means that technological things have their own novel kind of
presence, endurance, and connections among parts and wholes. They have their own
way of presenting themselves and the world in which they operate. The essence of
technology is, for Heidegger, not the best or most characteristic instance of
technology, nor is it a nebulous generality, a form or idea. Rather, to consider
technology essentially is to see it as an event to which we belong: the structuring,
ordering, and “requisitioning” of everything around us, and of ourselves. The second
point is that technology even holds sway over beings that we do not normally think
of as technological, such as gods and history. Third, the essence of technology as
Heidegger discusses it is primarily a matter of modern and industrial technology. He
is less concerned with the ancient and old tools and techniques that antedate
modernity; the essence of technology is revealed in factories and industrial
processes, not in hammers and plows. And fourth, for Heidegger, technology is not
simply the practical application of natural science. Instead, modern natural science
can understand nature in the characteristically scientific manner only because nature
has already, in advance, come to light as a set of calculable, orderable forces — that
is to say, technologically.
According to him there are two characteristics of modern technology as a
revealing process. First, the mode of revealing of modern technology is a
challenging. Things are revealed or brought forth by challenging or demanding them.
It is putting to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy that can be
extracted and stored. The mining technology today is a good example for this mode
of revealing things. Tracks of land reveal as something challenged because man sees
them as objects where coal and ore can be demanded. Man sees them as source of
energy. These energies can be stored so that man can summon them at his bidding.
Shortly, nature reveals itself in modern technology as things of manipulation, as
things that yield energy whenever man demands them to do so. “Challenging” as a
mode of revealing nature could be sharply contrasted “Physis” which is the arising of
the changes of the season is an example of this form of revealing. The revelation has
its own autonomy and, at best, man can only witness. This is a natural way of
revealing.
The mode of revealing in modern technology brought about new world ordering.
This kind of ordering is best described as “artificial” in contrast to “natural ordering.
It sees nature as an object of manipulation and not anymore as an autonomous reality
demanding respect and admiration. The network of things is now reduced into the
network of manipulation. The second characteristic of modern technology as a
revealing process is that the challenging that brings forth the energy of nature is an
“expediting”. In the modern use of word, expediting means to hasten the movement
of something. However, in its original sense, expediting is also a process of revealing
inasmuch as it “unlocks” and “exposes” something. But what is exposed is still
directed towards something else, i.e. toward the maximum yield at the minimum
expense. In short, things that are revealed in an expedited manner are brought forth
as resources that must be used efficiently. In mining for example, man digs coal not
simply to know what coals are. Yes, man “exposes” these coals but not simply to
know them. They uncover them because he wants to use them. Coals are mined from
track loads of land so as to use their energy. This is the characteristic of the things
revealed in modern technology. They are there “for” something.
Heidegger uses a technical word to name the things that are revealed in modern
technology as “standing in reserve”. Things as standing in reserve are not “objects”.
Objects on the other hand, are things that “stand against us” as things with autonomy.
They are revealed mainly in human thinking and do not allow further manipulations.
Things as standing in reserve, on the other hand, are called to come forth in
challenging and expediting. They are reduced into the objectlessness of modern
technology. Nothing anymore “stands against us” as objects of autonomy and
wonder. Everything is regressed into an interlocking of things that yield what man
wants whenever he demands them to do so. Even nature is now revealed as standing
in reserve and not anymore objects of autonomy.
Unlike the modern technologies, the old technology still respects nature as an
object of autonomy. The modern and the old technologies are of different modes of
revealing, the former artificial and the latter natural. Take for example, the contrast
between how the modern technology of the hydropower plant and the old technology
of a wooden bridge reveal the presence of a river. However, the hydropower plant
reveals the river that supplies it energy simply as another thing standing in reserve. It
is a source of energy which completes the interlocking of things in the system of
hydropower generation. The river is not anymore seen as an object with autonomy
but an object on call to be used. Conversely, the technology of building a wooden
bridge reveals the river not as a key link in completing the bridge.it rather respects it
as a part of nature, a “landscape” using Heidegger’s own term, that is somewhat
permanent and stand against us as another entity. We move “around” it so to say and
we only see what we can do to overcome its dominating presence, in other words, we
do not manipulate it, but rather, we act according to its rules.
 For Heidegger enframing is the “essence” of modern technology. Enframing
simply means putting into the frame of modern technology everything in nature. This
“frame” of modern technology is the network or interlocking things standing in
reserve. It is the world centered on man’s caprices and demands. It is a world of
manipulation and demystification. In here nothing is mysterious anymore. This is
what Heidegger was afraid of, that the process of truth will revert back into the realm
of erring. It must be remembered that for truth to be, it must retain its sense of
mystery. Truth is for the most part untruth. To disregard this essentially limited
process of revelation is also to disregard the entirety of its essence. We cannot have
absolute knowledge of reality, more so, we cannot have full dominion over it. As
they say, we are only “guardians” of creation. To disregard this nature of reality is
also putting ourselves into the brink of danger.
Because of man’s arrogance, nature is in the verge of destruction. He thinks he
knows how nature works and tends to hasten or “expedite” its processes. He
demands too much from it and in turn disrupts its natural flow. Nature is beyond our
control. Its truth is beyond our grips. For all we know, it is the one that controls us. If
we ever try to dominate it, nature will surely revolt against us in a very humbling
manner.
B. Human Flourishing
Human flourishing is said to be the best translation for the Greek word
Eudaimonia, which for both Plato and Aristotle, means not only good fortune and
material prosperity but a situation achieved through virtue, knowledge and
excellence. Learning to be human is central to Confucian humanism and its “creative
transformation” of the self through an “ever-expanding network of relationships
encompassing the family, community, nation, world and beyond. It is thus
inseparable from self-awareness and self-cultivation, and this “self” far from being
an isolated individual, is experientially and practically a center of relationships.
The affirmation that human flourishing implies development of the individual in
his intellectual, affective, moral and spiritual dimensions obviously needs
elaboration. Plato in the Republic, contends that the soul, or mind, has three
motivating parts: rational, spirited or emotional and appetitive. Each of these have
their own desired ends, and Eudomenia or human flourishing requires an ordering of
this tripartite structure of the soul: the rational and spirited parts. Virtue ensues. In
the same vein, Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, states that Eudaimonia is
constituted not by honor, or wealth power, but by rational activity in accordance with
excellence in the virtues of character including courage, honesty, pride, friendliness
and wittiness, the intellectual virtues notably rationality and judgment, as well as
mutually beneficial friendships and scientific knowledge, particularly of things that
are fundamental and unchanging.
According to Aristotle, all humans seek to flourish. It’s the proper and desired
end of all of our actions. Flourishing, however, is a functional definition. To
understand something’s function, you have to understand its nature. In Aristotle’s
schema, there are four aspects of human nature: physical, emotional, social and
rational. As physical beings, we require nourishment, exercise, rest and all the other
things that it takes to keep our bodies functioning properly. As emotional beings, we
have wants, desires, urges and reactions. We perceive something in the world that we
want and we have the power of volition to get it; likewise, we have the power to
avoid the things we don’t want. For humans, these wants can get pretty complex, but
at rock bottom we all have emotional needs and wants that spring from rather basic
sources. As social beings, we must live and function in particular societies. Our
social nature stacks on top of our emotional nature, such that we have wants and
needs that we would not have were we not social creatures. As rational beings, we
are creative, expressive, knowledge-seeking and able to obey reason. We might not
always obey reason and we may sometimes not want to exercise our minds, but a
large part of our existence relate to our being rational animals. An individual cannot
truly flourish if he is not flourishing in one of the four aspects of human nature.
Human flourishing also known as personal flourishing involves the rational use
of one’s individual potentialities, including talents, abilities and virtues in the pursuit
of his freely and rationally chosen values and goals. An action is considered to be
proper if it leads to the flourishing of the person performing the action. Human
flourishing is, at the same time, a moral accomplishment and a fulfillment of human
capacities, and it is one through being the other. Self-actualization is moral growth
and vice-versa.
Not an abstraction, human flourishing is real and highly personal by nature,
consists in the fulfillment of both a man’s human nature and unique potentialities,
and is concerned with choices and actions that necessarily deal with the particular
and the contingent. One man’s self –realization is not the same as another’s. What is
called for in terms of concrete actions such as choice of career, education, friends,
home and others, varies from person to person. Human flourishing becomes an
actuality when one uses his practical reason to consider his unique needs,
circumstances and capabilities, and so on, to determine which concrete instantiations
of human values and virtues will comprise his well-being. The idea of human
flourishing is inclusive and can encompass a wide variety of constitutive ends such
as knowledge, the development of character traits, productive work, religious
pursuits, community building, love, charitable activities, allegiance to persons and
causes, self-efficacy, material well-being, pleasurable sensations, etc.
To flourish, a man must pursue goals that are both rational for him individually
and also as a human being. Whereas the former will vary depending upon one’s
particular circumstances, the latter are common to man’s distinctive nature – man has
the unique capacity to live rationally. The use of reason is a necessary, but not a
sufficient, condition for human flourishing. Living rationally ( i.e., consciously )
means dealing with the world conceptually. Living consciously implies respect for
the facts of reality. The principle of living consciously is not affected by the degree
of one’s intelligence not the extent of one’s knowledge; rather, it is the acceptance of
use of one’s reason in the recognition and perception of reality and in his choice of
values and actions to the best of his ability,
 whatever that ability may be. To pursue rational goals through rational means is
the only way to cope successfully with reality and achieve one’s goals. Although
rationality is not always rewarded, the fact remains that it is through the use of one’s
mind that a man not only discovers the values required for personal flourishing, he
attains them. Values can be achieved in reality if a man recognizes and adheres to the
reality of his unique personal endowments and contingent circumstances. Human
flourishing is positively related to a rational man’s attempts to externalize his values
and actualize his internal views of how things ought to be in the outside world.
Practical reason can be used to choose, create, and integrate all the values and virtues
that comprise personal flourishing.
CHAPTER 5
The Good Life
A. What is a Good Life?
This is one of the oldest philosophical questions. It has been posed in different
ways—How should one live? What does it mean to “live well”?—but these are really
just the same question. After all, everyone wants to live well, and no one wants “the
bad life.” But the question isn’t as simple as it sounds. Philosophers specialize in
unpacking hidden complexities, and the concept of the good life is one of those that
needs quite a bit of unpacking.
One basic way we use the word “good” is to express moral approval. So when
we say someone is living well or that they have lived a good life, we may simply
mean that they are a good person, someone who is courageous, honest, trustworthy,
kind, selfless, generous, helpful, loyal, principled, and so on. They possess and
practice many of the most important virtues. And they don’t spend all their time
merely pursuing their own pleasure; they devote a certain amount of time to
activities that benefit others, perhaps through their engagement with family and
friends, or through their work, or through, various voluntary activities. This moral
conception of the good life has had plenty of champions. Socrates and Plato both
gave absolute priority to being a virtuous person over all other supposedly good
things such as pleasure, wealth, or power.
In Plato’s dialogue Gorgias, Socrates takes this position to an extreme. He
argues that it is much better to suffer wrong than to do it; that a good man who has
his eyes gouged out and is tortured to death is more fortunate than a corrupt person
who has used wealth and power dishonorably. In his masterpiece, the Republic, Plato
develops this argument in greater detail. The morally good person, he claims, enjoys
a sort of inner harmony, whereas the wicked person, no matter how rich and
powerful he may be or how many pleasure he enjoys, is disharmonious,
fundamentally at odds with himself and the world.
It is worth noting, though, that in both the Gorgias and the Republic, Plato
bolsters his argument with a speculative account of an afterlife in which virtuous
people are rewarded and wicked people are punished. Many religions also conceive
of the good life in moral terms as a life lived according to God’s laws. A person who
lives this way— obeying the commandments and performing the proper rituals—is
pious. And in most religions, such piety will be rewarded. Obviously, many people
do not receive their reward in this life. But devout believers are confident that their
piety will not be in vain. Christian martyrs went singing to their deaths confident that
they would soon be in heaven. Hindus expect that the law of karma will ensure that
their good deeds and intentions will be rewarded, while evil actions and desires will
be punished, either in this life or in future lives.
The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was one of the first to declare, bluntly,
that what makes life worth living is that we can experience pleasure. Pleasure is
enjoyable, it’s fun, it’s...well...pleasant! The view that pleasure is the good, or, to put
I another way, that pleasure is what makes life worth living, is known as hedonism.
The word “hedonist,” when applied to a person, has slightly negative connotations. It
suggests that they are devoted to what some have called the “lower” pleasures such
as sex, food, drink, and sensual indulgence in general.
Epicurus was thought by some of his contemporaries to be advocating and
practicing this sort of lifestyle, and even today an “epicure” is someone who is
especially appreciative of food and drink. But this is a misrepresentation of
Epicureanism. Epicurus certainly praised all kinds of pleasures. The good life has to
be virtuous. Although Epicurus disagreed with Plato about the value of pleasure, he
fully agreed with him on this point.
Today, this hedonistic conception of the good life is arguably dominant in
Western culture. Even in everyday speech, if we say someone is “living the good
life,” we probably mean that they enjoying lots of recreational pleasures: good food,
good wine, skiing, scuba diving, lounging by the pool in the sun with a cocktail and a
beautiful partner.
What is key to this hedonistic conception of the good life is that it emphasizes
subjective experiences. On this view, to describe a person as “happy” means that
they “feel good,” and a happy life is one that contains many “feel good” experiences.
If Socrates emphasizes virtue and Epicurus emphasizes pleasure, another great
Greek thinker, Aristotle, views the good life in a more comprehensive way.
According to Aristotle, we all want to be happy. We value many things because they
are a means to other things. For instance, we value money because it enables us to
buy things we want; we value leisure because it gives us time to pursue our interests.
But happiness is something we value not as a means to some other end but for its
own sake. It has intrinsic value rather than instrumental value.
So for Aristotle, the good life is a happy life. But what does that mean? Today,
many people automatically think of happiness in subjectivist terms: To them, a
person is happy if they are enjoying a positive state of mind, and their life is happy if
this is true for them most of the time.
 Aristotle agrees with Socrates that to live the good life one must be a morally
good person. He also agrees with Epicurus that a happy life will involve many and
varied pleasurable experiences. We can’t really say someone is living the good life if
they are often miserable or constantly suffering.
Michael Soupios and Panos Mourdoukoutas wrote a book entitled The Ten
Golden Rules on Living a Good Life where they extracted “ancient wisdom from the
Greek philosophers on living the good life” and mapped it into modern times. Here is
a summary of what they wrote, extracted from a Forbes article written by Dr.
Mourdoukoutas:
1. Examine life, engage life with a vengeance; always search for new pleasures and
new destinies to reach with your mind.
2. Worry only about the things that are in your control, the things that can be
influenced and changed by your actions, not about the things that are beyond your
capacity to direct or alter.
3. Treasure Friendship, the reciprocal attachment that fills the need for affiliation.
Friendship cannot be acquired in the market place, but must be nurtured and
treasured in relations imbued with trust and amity.
4. Experience True Pleasure. Avoid shallow and transient pleasures. Keep your life
simple. Seek calming pleasures that contribute to peace of mind. True pleasure is
disciplined and restrained.
5. Master Yourself. Resist any external force that might delimit thought and action;
stop deceiving yourself, believing only what is personally useful and convenient;
complete liberty necessitates a struggle within, a battle to subdue negative
psychological and spiritual forces that preclude a healthy existence; self-mastery
requires ruthless candor.
6. Avoid Excess. Live life in harmony and balance. Avoid excesses. Even good
things, pursued or attained without moderation, can become a source of misery and
suffering.
7. Be a Responsible Human Being. Approach yourself with honesty and
thoroughness; maintain a kind of spiritual hygiene; stop the blame-shifting for your
errors and shortcomings.
8. Don’t Be a Prosperous Fool. Prosperity by itself is not a cure-all against an ill- led
life and may be a source of dangerous foolishness. Money is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for the good life, for happiness and wisdom.
9. Don’t Do Evil to Others. Evildoing is a dangerous habit, a kind of reflex too
quickly resorted to and too easily justified that has a lasting and damaging effect
upon the quest for the good life. Harming others claims two victims—the receiver of
the harm, and the victimizer, the one who does harm.
10. Kindness towards others tends to be rewarded. Kindness to others is a good habit
that supports and reinforces the quest for the good life. Helping others bestows a
sense of satisfaction that has two beneficiaries—the beneficiary, the receiver of the
help, and the benefactor, the one who provides the help.
A. What is Human Existence?
The meaning of existence is derived from philosophical and religious
contemplation and scientific inquiries about, social ties, consciousness and
happiness. Many other issues are also involved, such as symbolic meaning, ontology,
value, purpose, ethics, good and evil, free will, the existence of one and multiple
Gods, conceptions of God, the soul and the afterlife. Philosophers have tried to find
the secret of existence, the meaning of it all. Aristotle teaches that each man's life has
a purpose and that the function of one's life is to attain that purpose. He explains that
the purpose of life is earthly happiness or flourishing that can be achieved via reason
and the acquisition of virtue. Articulating an explicit and clear understanding of the
end toward which a person's life aims, Aristotle states that each human being should
use his abilities to their fullest potential and should obtain happiness and enjoyment
through the exercise of their realized capacities. He contends that human
achievements are animated by purpose and autonomy and that people should take
pride in being excellent at what they do. According to Aristotle, human beings have a
natural desire and capacity to know and understand the truth, to pursue moral
excellence, and to instantiate their ideals in the world through action.
Plato’s reputation comes from his idealism of believing in the existence of
universalis. His Theory of Forms proposes that universals do not physically exist,
like objects, but as heavenly forms. In the dialogue of Republic, the character of
Socrates describes the Form of the Good. His theory on justice in the soul relates to
the idea of happiness relevant to the question of the meaning of life. In Platonism,
the meaning of life is in attaining the highest form of knowledge, which is the Idea of
the Good, from which all good and just things derive utility and value.
B. What is a Public Good?
Rolando Gripaldo, a Filipino philosopher, argues that the concept of the
public good carries largely the politico-ethical sense, which subsumes the politico-
ethical senses. The public good is public in the sense that the beneficiaries are the
general public. The government or state pursues it with a service orientation while
private corporations pursue it with a profit orientation. He also cites mixed public
goods which are pursued by private organizations with a service motivation.
Government corporations are basically motivated by service through having profit is
not precluded. He also talks about public bads, such as corruption, pollution and
crimes.
A public good is that which benefits by its use, the communal or national
public. This can be perceived in two levels. The first level comes from the people
themselves. They perceive the public good to be beneficial to most if not to all of
them. This utilitarian consideration is important in that, on the other hand, it serves as
the ethical standard by which the public-through a civil society-unify themselves in
consideration of their individual and social benefits. As individuals, they may of
course think in terms of their own selfish benefits from a public good, but there is
also a recognition that unless they work together for their common welfare, the
public good aspired for may not materialistic. They as individuals may suffer as
beneficiaries from its nonrealization. In this regard, then elements of unity (bonding
together for individual interests) and subsidiarity (working together for the common
good) are significant aspects of a national public good from the communal or
national people’s point of view. The second level comes from the local or national
government, which believes or assumes with the utilitarian perspective that a
particular project or service is desired by the populace as necessary for their common
welfare. As such, the local or national government views it as a public good.
Examples of these assumed necessary public services or public goods are national
defense, education, public health, public ports/airports and highways, social services,
postal services, and the like.
CHAPTER 6
When Technology and Humanity Cross
A. The Ethical Dilemmas of Robotics
The rapid advancements in technology that the world has witnessed over the
past century have made a reality of many of mankind’s wildest dreams. From being
able to cross the earth, air, and sea at extreme speeds to being able to send and
receive information instantly via the Internet, the technological advancements in
recent years have become cornerstones of modern society. One dream that is still yet
to be perfectly fulfilled by advancements in technology is the development of
human-like and self-aware robots, often referred to as androids. While robotic
technology has come a long way since its initial attempts, the robot which is largely
indistinguishable from a human is still far from a reality. However, as technology
continues to develop and evolve exponentially, many people believe it is only a
matter of time. If and when truly "living" robots were to come about, one can foresee
a slew of ethical dilemmas developing.
A complete consensus on the definition of the word “robot” has yet to be
reached. However, it is commonly accepted that robots contain some combination of
the following attributes such as mobility, intelligent behavior, sense and manipulation
of environment. The term “robot” truly extends to more than just androids. The
commonly accepted first use of the word was in 1920 in the form of a play written by
Karel Capek. The play was entitled R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) and
involves the development of artificial people. These people are referred to as robots
and while they are given the ability to think, they are designed to be happy as
servants. The use of the word “robot” in Capek's play comes from the Slavic
languages‟ word for “work,” which is robota.
While the word “robot” was not used until 1920, the idea of mechanical
humans has been around as far back as Greek mythology. One example that closely
relates to the servant robots seen in Capek's play is the servants of the Greek god
Hephaestus, the god of fire and the forge. It is recorded that Hephaestus had built
robots out of gold which were “his helpers, including a complete set of life-size
golden handmaidens who helped around the house”. Another example of robots in
Greek mythology comes from the stories of Pygmalion, who is said to have crafted a
statue of Galatea that would come to life.
Beyond the ancient myths which speak of humanoid robots, one of the
milestones in the design and development of such robots came with the discovery of
Leonardo Da Vinci's journals which contained detailed plans for the construction of a
humanoid robot. Inspired by the ancient myths, the robot was designed in the form of
an armored knight and was to possess the ability to sit up, wave its arms, move its
head, and open its mouth. The journals in which the plans were found date back to
1495. It is unknown if this robot was ever built by Da Vinci, but merely conceiving it
was a milestone in the timeline of robotic history. The Modern State of Robots From
Da Vinci to the current day the development of humanoid robots has continued to
approach the goal of a robot that is indistinguishable from a human. However,
despite the massive recent advancements in technology and even the exponential
growth of computing power of the past decades, this dream is still far from a reality.
In a comprehensive article in the New York Times, Robin Marantz Henig
discusses her experiences with what are often labeled “social robots.” These robots
are by no means what the servant robots of Greek mythology have led many people
to hope for; rather they are infant versions, at best, of the long-hoped-for androids.
Henig said these machines are not the docile companions of the collective dreams,
robots designed to flawlessly serve dinners, fold clothes and do the dull or dangerous
jobs that human do not want to do. Nor are they the villains of the collective
nightmares, poised for robotic rebellion against humans whose machine creations
have become smarter than the humans themselves. They are, instead, hunks of metal
tethered to computers, which need their human designers to get them going and to
smooth the hiccups along the way.
Despite the disappointment that many people feel when they are given the
chance to interact with the latest robots, some major players in the robotic industry
are quite optimistic. Rodney Brooks is an expert in robotics and artificial
intelligence. In an article written in 2008, Brooks explains that it is no longer a
question of whether human-level artificial intelligence will be developed, but rather
how and when. While it is true that androids are not the only robots which have a
great impact on man’s lives, their development introduces a set of unique ethical
issues which industrial robots do not evoke. Working under the assumption that it is
only a matter of time until androids are an everyday reality, it is proper to begin
thinking about what these ethical issues are and how they may be dealt with in the
coming years. The overarching question that results is what exactly these robots are.
Are they simply piles of electronics running advanced algorithms, or are they a new
form of life? What Is Life? The question of what constitutes life is one on which the
world may never come to a consensus.
 From the ancient philosophers to the common man on the street, it seems
that everyone has an opinion on what a living organism consists of. One of the more
prevailing views throughout history has been that of Aristotle. The basic tenets of
Aristotle’s view are that an organism has both “matter” and “form.” This differs from
the philosophical position known as materialism, which has become popular in
modern times and finds its roots among the ancient Indians. Materialism does not
entertain any notion of organisms having a “form” or “soul”; rather, organisms are
made simply of various types of “matter.” These two views are at odds with one
another and the philosophical position society adopts will inevitably have a huge
impact on how humans interact with robots. Aristotle The view articulated by
Aristotle and his modern-day followers describes life in terms of unity, a composite
of both “matter” and “form.” One type of “matter” which Aristotle speaks of could
be biological material such as what plants, animals, and humans consist of. Another
type of “matter” could also be the mechanical and electronic components which
make up modern-day robots. Clearly it is not the “matter” alone which distinguishes
whether an object is a living organism, for if it were, Aristotle‟s view would differ
little from materialism. The distinguishing characteristic of Aristotle is his inclusion
of “form.” The term simply means whatever it is that makes a human a human, a
plant a plant, and an animal an animal. Each of these have a specific “form” which is
not the same as its “matter,” but is a functioning unity which is essential to each
living organism in order for it to be just that, living. The word used to describe the
“form” of a living organism is “psyche” or “soul.”
Unlike Aristotle's philosophical view, which was embraced by various
religions, perhaps most notably by the Roman Catholic Church and more specifically
by St. Thomas Aquinas, materialism often finds itself at odds with most religious
views in the world. Catholicism being a prime example of this, one will not find a
favorable description of materialism when looking at the opening lines of its
definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia's entry begins by defining
materialism as “a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the
world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the
conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the
soul.” Why does it matter that materialism is at odds with Catholicism and most
other religions? More specifically, what does this have to do with robots and
androids? It is relevant because if materialism is correct, then humans should have
the power to develop new forms of life. If it is true that everything in the universe is
simply material and the result of material interactions, then nothing should be
stopping us from creating androids and recognizing them as just as valid a life form
as humans.
The decision of what level of life robots are to be considered is an essential
one. In 1942 Isaac 7 Asimov introduced to the world of science fiction what are
known as the Three Laws of Robotics, which were published in his short story
“Runaround.” The laws Asimov formulated are: First, a robot may not injure a
human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second, a
robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders
would conflict with the First Law. Third, a robot must protect its own existence as
long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. While these
laws are part of science fiction history, the current state of robotic technology
demands that they be considered in a new light. As with many ideas once confined to
the world of science fiction, Asimov‟s laws are now able to make the transition into
reality. At first glance these three laws seem to be an excellent way to ensure the safe
development of this supposed new life form. However, Asimov‟s laws presuppose
that human life is of greater value than that of the androids being developed. If we
work under the assumption that androids should be considered just below humans,
Asimov‟s laws may hold true. But what if we hold to the conclusion materialism
reaches, that androids should be placed at or above the level of humans? If this is the
case, Asimov‟s laws will not be able to be applied. The main reason is that we could
not see androids as equal forms of life and implement Asimov‟s laws, which place
androids in direct submission to humans. How can it be that an android should give
its life for a human if an android has a right to life equal to that of a human? Imagine
an army made up of both androids and humans. Should the android always give its
life to save a human‟s life? Would human soldiers be willing to die for an android?
As much as people may believe in materialism and come to conclusions that robots
will one day be a life form equal to humans, I find it hard to believe that many
people would actually die for a robot. Robot Code of Ethics While it remains true
that robotics technology is not at a place where ethical codes for robots are
necessary, it is not stopping some countries from being proactive and taking the
beginning steps in the development of a robot code of ethics.
South Korea is considered one of the most high-tech countries in the world
and they are leading the way in the development of such a code. Known officially as
the Robot Ethics Charter, it is being drawn up “to prevent human abuse of robots—
and vice versa”. The main focus of the charter is said to be on the social problems the
mass integration of robots into society is bound to create. In particular it aims to
define how people are to properly interact with robots, in Stefan Lovgren‟s words,
“human control over robots and humans becoming addicted to robot interaction”.
Beyond the social problems robots may bring with them, there also is an array of
legal issues, the primary one in the charter being what and how information is
collected and distributed by robots. To many it seems as though South Korea‟s
Robot Ethics Charter is the beginning of a modern-day implementation of Asimov‟s
Three Laws of Robotics. However, many robot designers such as Mark Tilden think
this is all a bit premature. Tilden claims that we are simply not at a point where
robots can be given morals and compares it to “teaching an ant to yodel”. Tilden goes
on to claim that when we do reach that point, the interactions will be less than
pleasant, stating that “as many of Asimov's stories show, the conundrums robots and
humans would face would result in more tragedy than utility”. Despite Tilden‟s and
others‟ pessimistic view of what the future holds for the human-robot relationship,
technology will slow down for no one. It is only a matter of time before other
countries will follow in South Korea’s footsteps and create their own code of ethics
for robots and their interactions with humans.
B. Human, Morals and Machines
 Technology has begun to change our species’long-standing experiences moral reasoning will be subject to the same explanatory requirements that we would
with nature. Now,we have technological nature—technologies that in various ways demand of explaining any action they take.
mediate, augment, or simulate the natural world. Entire television networks, such as
the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet, provide us with mediated digital Today’s emerging technologies, like Artificial Intelligence (AI), augmented
experiences of nature: the lion’s hunt, the Monarch’s migration, or a climb high into and virtual reality, home robots, and cloud computing, to name only a few of the
the Himalayan peaks. Video games, like Zoo Tycoon, engage children with animal sophisticated technologies in development today, are capturing the imaginations of
life. Zoos themselves are bringing technologies, such as webcams into their exhibits many. The advanced capabilities of today’s emerging technologies are driving many
so that we can, for example, watch animals from the leisure of our home or a cafe. academics, entrepreneurs, and enterprises to envision futures in which their impacts
Inexpensive robot pets have been big sellers in the Wal-Marts and Targets of the on society will be nothing short of transformative. Whether these emerging
world. Sony’s higher-end robot dog AIBO sold well. Real people now spend technologies will realize these ambitious possibilities is uncertain. What is certain is
substantial time in virtual environments (e.g., Second Life). In terms of the physical that they will intersect and interact with powerful demographic, economic, and
and psychological wellbeing of our species, does it matter that we are replacing cultural forces to upend the conditions of everyday life.
actual nature with technological nature? To support our provisional answer that it The article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carrs discusses the
does matter, we draw on evolutionary and cross-cultural developmental accounts of effects that the Internet may be having on our ability to focus, the difference in
the human relation with the natural world and then consider some recent knowledge that we now have, and our reliance on the Internet. The points that are
psychological research on the effects of technological nature. made throughout Carrs’ article are very thought-provoking, but his sources make
Scientists are already beginning to think seriously about the new ethical them seem invaluable. Carr discusses the effects that the Internet has on our minds.
problems posed by current developments in robotics. Experts in South Korea were He feels that the Internet is bad for the brain. Nicholas Carr writes that he spends
drawing up an ethical code to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa. A much of his leisure time from the Net. Carr feels like he cannot concentrate on the
group of leading roboticists called the Chapter 2 81 European Robotics Network long passages of reading because his brain is used to the fast millisecond flow of the
(Euron) has even started lobbying governments for legislation. At the top of their list Net. “For more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching
of concerns is safety. Robots were once confined to specialist applications in industry and surfing.” The supporting idea is that his mind now “expects to take in
and the military, where users received extensive training on their use, but they are information the way the Net distributes it--in a swiftly moving streams of particles.”
increasingly being used by ordinary people. Robot vacuum cleaners and lawn His brain wants to think as fast as the Internet goes. In summary, the article is split
mowers are already in many homes, and robotic toys are increasingly popular with into two pieces. The first is Nicholas Carr’s longing for his brain to be one with the
children. As these robots become more intelligent, it will become harder to decide Internet, a man-made machine. The second part of the article is Google’s standpoint
who is responsible if they injure someone. Is the designer to blame, or the user, or the on how our brains should be replaced by artificial intelligence.
robot itself? The ethical or moral sense for machines canbe built on a utilitarian base.
There are special cases that will require modifications of the core rules that are based
on the circumstances of their use. Doctors, for example, don not euthanize patients to
spread the wealth of their organs, even if it means that there is a net positive with
regard to survivors. They have to conform to a separate code of ethics designed
around the needs of patients and their rights that restricts their actions. The same
holds for lawyers, religious leaders, and military personnel who establish special
relationships with individuals who are protected by specific ethical codes. The
simple utilitarian model will certainly have overlays depending on the role that these
robots play. They will act in accord with whatever moral or ethical code we provide
them and the value determinations that we set. They will run the numbers and do the
right thing. In emergency situations, our autonomous cars will sacrifice the few to
protect the many. When faced with dilemmas, they will seek the best outcomes
independent of whether they themselves are comfortable with the actions. So, as with
all other aspects of machine intelligence, it is crucial that these systems are able to
explain their moral decisions to us. They will need to be able to reach into their
silicon souls and explain the reasoning that supports their actions. We need them to
be able to explain themselves in all aspects of their reasoning and actions. Their