Ethics for social robotics: A critical analysis
This academic paper offers a critical analysis of the prevailing ethical approach to social assistive robotics (SAR). It identifies three major shortcomings in current debates: an individual-centered perspective, a narrowed understanding of ethical concepts like freedom and responsibility, and a lack of discussion on SAR teleology. To address these gaps, the authors propose a comprehensive ethical framework grounded in applied ethics, political philosophy, and care ethics.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, ethicists, and developers should read this to understand the conceptual shortcomings in current social robotics ethics and how to adopt a more robust, care-centered framework.
What the document contains
The document examines the current state of ethical reflection on social assistive robotics (SAR) through a critical literature review. It identifies key methodological flaws in existing scholarship and outlines foundational research directions—specifically drawing on philosophical accounts of freedom, autonomy, and care ethics—to build a more comprehensive normative framework.
The text does not provide specific technical safety standards, binding regulatory enforcement mechanisms, or concrete legislative text.
- Current ethical debates on social assistive robotics (SAR) predominantly rely on an individual-centered perspective that overlooks broader sociopolitical structures of justice.
- Core ethical concepts such as freedom, autonomy, and responsibility are frequently reduced to narrow, negative, or liability-based definitions.
- There is a general lack of explicit discussion regarding the teleology or ultimate goals of social assistive robotics.
- A comprehensive ethical approach requires treating social robotics as an exercise in applied ethics grounded in specific human practices like care.
- Future research must integrate philosophical accounts of freedom, autonomy, and care ethics to properly evaluate the implications of social robotics.
· 1 Introduction · 2 The ethical debate on SAR: three tendencies - 2.1 An individual-centered perspective - 2.2 A narrowed understanding of ethical concepts - 2.3 A lack of discussion on SAR teleology · 3 Social robotics for care: towards a comprehensive ethical approach - 3.1 Approaching social robotics from a philosophical account of freedom and autonomy - 3.2 Examining social robotics from the idea of “care”
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
The same happens with responsibility, which is currently understood in the traditional sense of liability for harm; a harm which is moreover linked to the robot’s behavior.
2.2 A narrowed understanding of ethical concepts
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
1/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
help clarify and discuss the (shared) grounds of many ethical issues associated to HRI in assistive contexts (such as deception, dignity, emotional attachment
3.2 Examining social robotics from the idea of “care”
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-23