Kantianism for the Ethics of Human–Robot Interaction
This academic research article explores the ethical implications of applying Kantian philosophy to human-robot interaction. It examines traditional views of robots as instruments and the limitations of Kantian indirect duties regarding animal and machine mistreatment, ultimately proposing a new framework based on Kant's duty to promote others' happiness. This perspective suggests that society has a moral duty to protect human-robot relationships if those relationships genuinely contribute to an individual's self-determined happiness.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers and scholars in technology ethics, philosophy, and human-robot interaction seeking a sophisticated Kantian framework for evaluating human relationships with artificial entities.
What the document contains
The paper addresses the applicability of Kantian ethical theory to human-robot interaction, examining whether robots can be objects of moral concern and arguing for a duty to protect human-robot relationships grounded in the Kantian duty to promote others' happiness.
The document does not provide legal regulations, technical specifications for robot design, or empirical data regarding human emotional responses.
- Traditional Kantian views treat robots purely as instrumental means or tools relative to human desires.
- The standard Kantian indirect duty argument prohibits cruel treatment of robots only to protect human moral feelings and character, not because robots possess moral status.
- Because the indirect duty approach only prevents character degradation, it fails to provide a positive normative basis for evaluating human-robot relationships.
- By applying Kant's duty to promote the subjective happiness of others, we can establish a moral duty to protect human-robot relationships that contribute to an individual's well-being.
- This duty focuses on respecting human choices regarding what constitutes their happiness, provided those choices do not involve immoral ends.
· Introduction · Robots as a Means to Serve Humans · Duties Regarding Robots: Indirect Duties Argument · The Duty to Protect the Human–Robot Relationship · Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
5/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.
2 Robots as a Means to Serve Humans
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
screening score · 2026-10-24