Not Relational Enough? Towards an Eco‑Relational Approach in Robot Ethics
This article critically examines current approaches in robot ethics, arguing that they rely too heavily on an anthropocentric 'properties approach' or modest relational views that neglect deep relationality with non-human entities. To address this limitation, the author develops an 'eco-relational approach' using phenomenological methods to demonstrate how human properties, actions, and existence are inherently intertwined with animals and technology. The paper concludes that acknowledging this relationality disrupts traditional human-centered ethical concepts and calls for a re-conceptualization of moral agency and responsibility in human-robot interactions.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers and ethicists in philosophy and technology studies interested in the theoretical foundations of robot ethics and human-technology relationships.
What the document contains
The article addresses the philosophical foundations of robot ethics, comparing the 'properties approach' and 'modest relational approaches' with a proposed 'eco-relational approach'. It examines how relationships with non-human entities like animals and robots shape human properties, actions, and ethical concepts.
The document does not provide concrete legal regulations, technical safety standards, or actionable compliance frameworks for AI developers and deployers.
- Traditional robot ethics predominantly relies on an anthropocentric properties approach that presupposes human-exclusive traits like consciousness and sentience.
- Modest relational approaches in robot ethics recognize the moral significance of relationships but still treat properties as mere projections or secondary features.
- An eco-relational approach integrates relationality with animals and technology from the outset, viewing properties as contextual, embodied, and enacted rather than possessed.
- Human-robot interactions generate hybrid actions and co-actions that disrupt traditional human-centered ethical concepts such as autonomy and responsibility.
- Moving beyond a human-centered paradigm allows ethics to account for the specific ways of being of non-human entities without forcing them into human criteria.
· Introduction · Anthropology of Technology, Robot Ethics and Our Relationships with Non-Human Entities · Approaches in Robot Ethics That Are Based on Human Properties · An Eco-Relational Approach to Robot Ethics · Consequences for Robot Ethics · Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
2/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
The surgeon either controls the robot from a console or works directly with it in the procedure, thereby guiding the surgery process.
4.2.3 Being as Co-Being and Actions as Co-Actions
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
1/5Protection of personal data and private life
Within this field, ethical concepts like responsibility, autonomy, agency, privacy, safety, and justice are applied to the robotics context
2.1 Robot Ethics and Anthropology of Technology
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23