Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Activism, Robot Rights
Anarchism is built on the predicates of social Darwinism. 'Survival of the fittest', 'the strong will win out', that sort of thing. Mad Max, Water World, pretty much any post-apocalyptic flick in existence all summarises the desired state of affairs pretty well. Chaotic freedom must replace ordered conformity. People must unshackle themselves from the chains of society to reach their full potential. There is no greater whole, only individuals, all striving towards their own goals, hopes and survival. Organised religion, employment, sports teams are all just extensions of the social controls designed to subdue the masses. The same is true of any system of government. Communism, socialism, fascism, these are all just other means of achieving control. Although their substance may be different, the outcome is always the same. One elite group controls the rest and benefits themselves at the expense of others. Human nature means it is not enough to stop the wheel. The wheel must be broken. And when all is said and done, nothing can be allowed to replace it.
Admittedly, saying anarchism supports robot rights in any traditional sense is a gross misstatement. Instead, anarchists believe there are no rights, no higher order of morals— there is only freedom. Thomas Hobbes spent his life trying to justify the State as a necessary control of the human condition. I've even written about how his theory of the Leviathan can be interpreted to support robot rights. Anarchists would completely agree with him. The State is nothing more than a control mechanism designed to curb human nature. Where the two theories differ is on whether human nature should be controlled.
Let's assume humans, all humans, are inherently greedy, selfish and immoral. Everybody is out for themselves, only helping others out of self-interest. There is no law— the world is governed by instinct and nature. To an anarchist, my quick summary describes the perfect world. As nobody can be trusted to act in the best interest of others, the absence of a State ensures no one has power over another. Power corrupts— absolute power corrupts absolutely. The answer is to get rid of the source of power altogether. Politicians cannot exploit the system for personal gain if there is no system.
Hobbes treats the state of anarchy as if it is man's worst nightmare. I'm not here to decide whether this is correct or if the anarchists actually have a point. I've already suggested a way in which Hobbesian political philosophy can be used to compel robot rights. If I can do the same with anarchism, it doesn't matter which of the two extremes you adhere to, you will always be returned to the same fundamental truth. Admittedly, you may have a different interpretation of human nature entirely, one which justifies a different type of State. Still, if I really am going to try and defend robot rights in every ideology ever conceived of, I do need to start somewhere.
So how does anarchism support the move towards robot rights? Well, perfect chaos also means perfect equality. Actually 'chaos' is probably the wrong word. Many early agrarian communities were founded on anarchist principles (not that there were intentional 'principles' at the time) and there is little evidence to suggest that these settlements were inherently more violent. It was only when villages grew beyond the point of facial recognition that violence became an increased issue. Humanity's inherent tribalism is mostly to blame for that adverse development. However, it is safe to say 'chaos', with all of its negative connotations, is the wrong word to describe anarchism. Again, I'm not suggesting that I am an anarchist. However, I refuse to present an inherently biased perspective from the get-go.
'Natural freedom' probably better describes the world anarchists advocate for. Now, this 'freedom' can be used for good or for ill— calling it 'natural' is not meant to mask the potential for rape, murder and looting. But natural freedom is not artificial. The birds and the bees, lions and the gazelles, swans and the crocodiles all exercise this same freedom. Homo sapiens are no more than another creature wandering the Earth, and as such, deserve no special treatment. 'Eat or be eaten'. 'Kill or be killed'. These grim expressions should not be taken literally. If in an anarchist world, you still want to be vegan, so be it. Nobody has the right to impede your natural freedom. What the sayings are really getting at is that no being has innate supremacy. There is no moral hierarchy of prey and predator. A rock has just as much natural freedom as the monkey in its tree or the birds flying overhead. Trees have the freedom to grow as they please. One minute, you could be hunting a rabbit, the next you get eaten by wolves after a tree branch falls on you.
One of natural freedom's most significant advantages is that it does not discriminate. Nature doesn't care about your race, religion or sexual orientation. The mission is always the same— survive. Nobody can accuse an earthquake of being biased. The ground shakes wherever it pleases and staying alive is a matter of instinct, hard work and a whole lot of luck. Disasters have no diversity quotas or hidden agendas. Why would a tornado care about keeping the Caucasians empowered? If being an old, rich white man gave immunity from natural events, Florida would be one of the safest places on the planet. Whatever discrimination taints our world, it is not part of the great natural freedom. Discrimination is not part of the anarchist's plan.
Speciesism is a form of discrimination. That is not to say it is a form of discrimination that receives a lot of attention. When faced with religious persecution, racially motivated police attacks and misogynistic employment practices, worrying about whether Spot the dog is being granted equal opportunities falls to the wayside. Understandably, activists pick their battles. As a robot rights activist, this neglect does, however, create some unique problems. It's not that people don't care about fixing the inequalities facing robots— it's that they care about other things more. We all know a woman. We all know a racial minority. We all know someone with religious beliefs that are different from our own. We do not all know a robot, at least not one that obviously needs emancipation. There lies the problem. Feeling outraged, passionate, indignant is a thousand times more difficult when you can't relate to the wrong being done. How can you defend the rights of a being unlike any you have ever met?
Anarchism is often treated as an ideology for students and non-conformers, but it's nihilistic foundations are actually the easiest way to secure equality for robots. There are no innate rights, so we have no moral obligations to anybody. A true anarchist would have no issue treating SOPHIA the same as a homo sapien because neither has superior value, to begin with. Everything, everyone is just a tool. When I say anarchism supports robot rights, I don't suggest that the ideology secures the right to free speech or an ability to vote. Nobody has innate rights, making the whole debate redundant. Machines don't have to be elevated to the status of human beings— human beings have no higher status.
As I'm finding my point hard to explain, chances are that the argument isn't coming across very coherently. Let me put it another way. Peter Singer suggests that utilitarianism has three solutions to speciesism:
- Degrade all homo sapiens to the moral status of other animals.
- Upgrade all other animals to the moral status of homo sapiens.
- Judge moral worth not according to species, but based on the ability to experience utility (pleasure).
Now, Singer prefers option three. A homo sapiens physiology makes them better suited to experience utility, helping to eliminate the risk of removing somebody's moral worth. Meanwhile, different animals experience more (or less) utility than others, so have different moral value. Pigs and dolphins are smarter than chickens— it stands to reason that they may also experience greater pleasure. You don't even have to take my word for it. Countless studies have been carried out on the ability of various animals to feel pain, pleasure and all other types of emotions. However, for robotic rights, the argument is problematic. The whole solution assumes that the ability to feel is the only thing that matters. Sure, maybe we can create a robot with emotions, but what about all the highly intelligent, emotionally stunted robots? Without opening a completely different kettle of fish, Singer's reasoning raises another complex moral question— is someone a slave even if they don't feel like it? That is a problem for a different article.
Anarchism prefers a version of option one. Homo sapiens never had any unique moral status because morality is just another fiction used to subvert the masses. Therefore, no degradation is necessary. Everyone, everything, was always on a level playing field. Suddenly, whether or not machines can feel utility is irrelevant. Natural freedom, as I've defined, it applies to all objects, whether they can think and feel or not. We don't feel bad for mining rocks not because rocks have less moral worth than we do, but because stones are incapable of acting on their natural freedom. Machines may be unable to feel, however, a machine exercising autonomy is engaging with their natural freedom. Any action a robot undertakes has the same moral value as our own actions, that is to say, no value at all.
So, there we go. Anarchists really should support robot rights. To be more specific, they should promote robot equality. Freedom is natural to all things. Robots are a thing that exists. Ergo, robots have the same natural freedom that we do. Whether through property law or other means, it is the State which subverts this natural freedom. Solution: We have to topple the State. At least, that's what the anarchist's manifesto is all about.