Trust in and Ethical Design of Carebots: The Case for Ethics of Care
This academic paper examines the ethical challenges arising from the use of carebots for vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and individuals with disabilities. It analyzes issues related to robot capabilities, potential deception, human over-reliance, lack of informed consent, and privacy infringements. To address these challenges, the author proposes using the Ethics of Care as a central normative framework for designing carebots due to its contextual sensitivity, coherence with principlism and other ethical theories, and strong association with trust.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, designers, and ethicists interested in the ethical development and deployment of assistive care robots.
What the document contains
The paper addresses the ethical challenges and trust issues associated with carebots deployed for health and social support, and evaluates the Ethics of Care as a foundational framework for robotic design.
The document does not provide enforceable legal regulations, technical engineering specifications, or a compliance audit mechanism for carebot manufacturers.
- Carebots used for elderly, children, and disabled individuals present unique challenges regarding trust, deception, attachment, consent, and privacy.
- Existing ethical guidelines and regulations are generally too broad and lack concrete frameworks specifically applicable to care contexts.
- The Ethics of Care offers concrete, context-sensitive principles well-suited for guiding the design and practice of carebots.
- An Ethics of Care framework aligns well with standard principlism and traditional ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.
- Adopting an Ethics of Care approach is closely linked with the preservation and maintenance of human-robot trust.
Not stated
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
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
2/5Protection of personal data and private life
potential infringements of privacy
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24