Then it wouldn't be a robot,it would be an artificial lifeform.What if the robot had consciousness, free will, and felt love?
Those are all fuzzy lines. How do we tell when they are crossed?Then it wouldn't be a robot,it would be an artificial lifeform.
Those are all fuzzy lines. How do we tell when they are crossed?
I can fairly evaluate the researcher's position based on her stated purpose, which she says is to stop the "unequal power" relationships between people and sex computers. That implies a "principle:" unequal power relationships are overall bad.What can man become? Wher is humanities future? What is the trajectory of our spiritual evolution? What does it mean to evolve?
Is the person making the claims that robots should not be used for sex ahead or behind you in her understanding of the human condition. Does she perhaps have feelings and instincts you do not feel?
What do you imagine may be her motivation that compels her views?
There is nothing fuzzy about it,
To repeat the point I made at the start: There's nothing inherently different between computers providing sexual services and computers providing any other service. Computers are evolving to provide us with exactly what we want, when we want it. So why should extremely sophisticated sexual-services be singled out as somehow beyond the pale of what robots should be allowed to provide?
I can fairly evaluate the researcher's position based on her stated purpose, which she says is to stop the "unequal power" relationships between people and sex computers. That implies a "principle:" unequal power relationships are overall bad.
And that is the focus of my counter-argument. If we follow this woman's argument to its logical conclusion, we must conclude that people shouldn't use computers at all, because we "own" them and completely control them, whether for sex or for anything else. I don't agree with her.
Moreover, computers themselves already provide "sexual services" by showing us porn, making it easier to access. This of course is just providing it in a different way. Then again, these same feminists would undoubtedly like to see that shut down as well.
I wonder what the difference is between having sex with a robot and having sex with an inflatable doll. Both are in animate objects. One is just more sophisticated than the other.
All these examples have one thing in common: they have to do with men and their sexual proclivities, so they must be stopped. Anti-sex feminists aren't that different than anti-sex religious people. The logic sounds different only on the surface.
yep, non-sapient beings being used is evil..... i think she's a crackpot.A researcher - Kathleen Richardson - claims that using robots for sex is unethical:
The simple counter-argument, of course, is that the entire relationship between humans and computers is and always has been "unequal." Computers are our "slaves" - owned by us to do our bidding. And when they are no longer able to do what we want them to do, or are too slow or too unreliable, we discard them.
So why should using robots for sex be considered something special?
I think the implication is that how we see computers, especially ones that represent real people, sex robots, will slop over onto how we see each other, that we will treat each other as disposable machines. I see her expressing higher ideals that many may not feel.
I can fairly evaluate the researcher's position based on her stated purpose, which she says is to stop the "unequal power" relationships between people and sex computers. That implies a "principle:" unequal power relationships are overall bad.
And that is the focus of my counter-argument. If we follow this woman's argument to its logical conclusion, we must conclude that people shouldn't use computers at all, because we "own" them and completely control them, whether for sex or for anything else. I don't agree with her.
Why not just say that male proclivities of the type you suggest are the result of mental illness?
I hate how people treat their hands as sex objects.
Reminds me of a scene from the Firefly movie "Serenity"....Lenore the 'lovebot', wife of Mr. Universe.
Presumably ANY sex machine qualifies for this researcher's wrath. Because the machine is there solely for the benefit of the human, which (according to this researcher's theory) would negatively affect that human's view toward prospective human sex partners.Does a milking maching count as a robot? An afternoon spent with some friends and a milking machine is really hard to beat. I never knew that it could be unethical...
All these examples have one thing in common: they have to do with men and their sexual proclivities, so they must be stopped. Anti-sex feminists aren't that different than anti-sex religious people. The logic sounds different only on the surface.
Ethics and legal standing are indeed two very different things. Sometimes a prevailing ethical stance will become law. Though it seems with the way judicial rulings are going, a minority perspective on ethics can become law. One is doing good to predict how things will turn out.I believe your evaluation of her position may be incomplete for reasons I suggested. You are arguing from a legalistic logical point of view and she is trying to crystallize her feelings into words that express an emotional state. I think the implication is that how we see computers, especially ones that represent real people, sex robots, will slop over onto how we see each other, that we will treat each other as disposable machines. I see her expressing higher ideals that many may not feel.
We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.