CEIAI Governance Database
Back to the database
Record STMT-W8AB1E3Advisory

A 21st-Century Ethical Hierarchy for Robots and Persons

Position paper UnknownGlobaladopted

This academic chapter proposes an ethical hierarchy (EH) that encompasses both robots and humans, catalyzed by the question of whether robots can be more moral than humans. The author argues that a mere emphasis on legal obligations for robots is inadequate and that most current deontic logics are morally inexpressive. The work highlights the need for formalizing intrinsic goodness and badness in ethical frameworks for artificial intelligence.

Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.

Who issued it

SpringerIndustry
Publisher
Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteAcademic · US
Contributor
Legal forceAdvisory
Under whose authorityUnknown
Judged fromfull text

Who it governs

Researchers and academicsGeneral publicAI developers and providers

Researchers and AI developers interested in the theoretical and logical foundations of machine ethics and robot moral reasoning.

Sectors
Research and science · artificial intelligence and robotics research

What the document contains

What's covered

The document addresses the theoretical foundations of machine and robot ethics, proposing an ethical hierarchy that goes beyond simple legal obligations and examines the limitations of current deontic logics in artificial intelligence.

What's missing

It contains no enforceable regulatory mandates, practical compliance guidelines for industry deployment, or specific technical standards.

Key takeaways
  • The paper introduces an ethical hierarchy (EH) for placing robots and humans within a unified ethical framework.
  • An exclusive emphasis on legal obligations for robots is argued to be inadequate.
  • Most contemporary deontic logics are evaluated as morally inexpressive for formalizing the ethical behavior of robots or persons.
  • Formalizing intrinsic goodness and badness is necessary for complete deontic logic systems.
Outline
· Abstract
· References
· Acknowledgements
· Author Information
· Editors and Affiliations
· Rights and Permissions
· About this chapter
Issued7 January 2017
Length2,480 words
FormatNot recorded
Scopeglobal

How it scores

Pending review

Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.

Accountability

0/5

Clear responsibility for AI outcomes

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-24

Fairness

0/5

Non-discrimination and equitable treatment

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-24

Human Dignity

0/5

Respect for the inherent worth of persons

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-24

Human Oversight

0/5

Humans remain in control of consequential decisions

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-24

Privacy

0/5

Protection of personal data and private life

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-24

Transparency

0/5

Openness about how AI systems work and are used

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-24

Enforcement

0/5

Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-24

Impact Assessment

0/5

Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-24

Topics

Physical AI Governancecontext
robot_ethics machine_ethics deontic_logic ethical_hierarchy artificial_intelligence