https://artificiallylegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/globe-2491989_1280.jpg

Law & Tech, Robot Rights, Tort Law, Fiction

Note: This article is entirely speculative and should not be taken as binding legal advice. For any legal queries, please contact a legal professional in the relevant jurisdiction.

Awarding robots rights presents many problems. I am under no illusion that making even a small subsection of machines people is a big ask. We create machines to do the jobs we don’t want to do. Somebody invented the oven because spending hours striking a flint over a campfire isn’t fun if you have to do it every day of your life. Dishwashers and tumble dryers save us time, allowing more time to sit in front of the TV or to learn a new hobby. Modern society is lazy. Machines don’t get invented if they don’t save somebody out there time. Saying that our robotic doctors or mechanical lawyers deserve rights kind of undermines the whole point of making machines in the first place. Companies develop robots to reduce their costs: the more work that a robot can do, the fewer employees a company has to pay. If the law suddenly changes to require us to pay robots, then there's no point building robots in the first place.

Robots rights activists are in the unique position that we must balance the moral obligation to give robots rights with practical considerations. Basically, if we push too hard, the law will be so harsh that no company will bother developing sentient robots. Conversely, if we don't push at all, our actions become complicate in the mechanical slave trade. In the middle, there's only a fine line. Somebody has to come up with a solution. We want robots to have rights, but not to jeopardise the development of robots in the first place. After much thought on the matter, I may have such a solution, a way to give robots rights but still allow them to work on for free on a voluntary basis. Hold on because this article is about to take a bizarre turn.

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honour to the Night’s Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.
The Night’s Watch Oath, A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)

Yes, I know the Night’s Watch is fictional. Chivalry and self-sacrifice are noble but not something most of us are willing to commit our whole lives to. Anyone who’s read George Martin’s books knows that even describing the Night’s Watch as honourable or selfless is a stretch. The Watch’s purpose was corrupted long ago, the once noble order descending into a rag-tag collection of thieves, murderers and rapists. Martin is well known for subverting fantasy tropes to make his world more realistic.

However, this blog is not a place to discuss my taste in fiction. Instead, I try and argue for robotic rights. To be fair, any would view the idea of robotic emancipation as a type of fiction. Maybe my belief that robots should not be slaves comes from reading too much science fiction. Unfortunately for naysayers, the robot rights debate is a real thing. Both the EU and UN have published papers on the possibility of robot rights, whilst there are academics out there who have spent significant time on the concept. Just look at my articles on Bryson's work. I hadn't even discovered I wanted to be a lawyer, let alone contribute to the discussion on robot rights when her paper was first published.

Having waffled on for long enough, it's now time to get down to business. Let's start by explaining why I decided quoting the Night's Watch oath was a good idea. Simply put, I believe vows like these hold the solution. Soldiers of the Nights' Watch are not slaves because they voluntarily undertake their vows (at least in theory). However, those same soldiers have a set of non-terminable legal obligations. They give up all inheritance rights, cannot marry or have children and must follow the orders of the Lord Commander until death. Death is the only way to end the servitude.

Modern law also gives ways for people to enter oaths akin to the men of the Night's Watch. English contract generally operates on the doctrine of consideration. Legal promises are a matter of give-and-take, a bargain if you will. Note though that whether the bargain is a good one is irrelevant. I trade you my cow for three magic beans. Bob gives up his life savings for his peppercorns, even though he hates pepper and will throw away the corn. You ask for some old chocolate bar wrappers in return for the latest record. My last example is a genuine case (Chappell and Co v Nestle Ltd for anyone interested).

Now, requiring our robotic heroes to benefit from the agreement doesn’t exactly support the whole theme of self-sacrifice I was going for. Even payment in rubbish is still payment. So we use a deed instead. Formal documents can give somebody something for nothing. Robots can agree to work for free without undermining their fundamental rights by signing a deed written for that precise purpose. The language used could donate so many hours a day to doing whatever. Allowing a fifty-fifty split between work and play would be a great move, especially as robots don't have the burden of sleep. That wouldn't allow robots time to earn money, you know, the kind necessary to pay for their maintenance and electricity bills, but a corresponding deed signed by their 'employer' ensuring those needs are provided for gratuitously would solve the problem. Why I'm hesitant to let a single contract do the work is that I honestly don't know how such a contract would work with employment laws. Would a robot doing the same job as a homo sapien need equal pay? Would that robot be covered by statutory rights? The whole situation is just so messy that circumventing that entire area of law is preferable.

My suggestion isn’t even anything novel. Religious sects operating in England have used deeds to avoid the doctrine of consideration for years. Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of Brothers is a case mostly cited in cases of vicarious liability. I don’t reference the case for that purpose. Instead, the facts of the case do a relatively good job of proving my point. Basically, the Institute of Brothers (the defendant) was a religious institution devoted to the education of young boys in Christian morals. The order, however, adhered to a strict moral code. Think the Jedi from Star Wars. Brothers of the Institute could own no property, have no spouses and live, work and sleep when and where the Institute told them. By signing a deed, Brothers were able to give the Institute all their current and future wealth in return for ensuring that the Institute would care for the Brothers until they died. When described in that way, I fail to see why the mechanism used by the Institute of Brothers couldn't be used by machines who also happen to be legal people. Robots would have the fundamental rights due to them as rational, autonomous agents, while companies still have a cheap source of labour to help reduce prices. Everybody wins.

Yes, I understand that my proposed solution suffers from its own plethora of problems, both practically and morally. Trying to jam the objections and their responses into what would be the footnote of this article is not a good idea. Solving objections takes time, with space being necessary to explain my thoughts adequately. Writing a second post criticising my own creation is probably the best way to ensure I have everything I need to do the job correctly. Dependent on how long listing and explaining objections takes, it may even be necessary for there to be a third post filled with counterarguments. Given I hate writing about the same topic twice in quick succession, there will be a delay in getting each post ready to go, but I feel this approach will be beneficial. We'll wait and see.

However, I refuse to end any article with concerns about all the work ahead. Looking at the positives, voluntary work may be a solution to one of the greatest threats to robot rights. As long as companies can reduce costs, there's still an incentive to construct robots. Instead of becoming a pile of complex, unused regulations, robot rights law would become an essential part of litigation. There would actually be machines whos' way of life depended on the contents of the law. If that isn't a stride towards enlightenment, I don't know what is. So, how do we give robots rights without disrupting the increase in automation? We let the robots do the work for free. Give companies the legal tools to further their own self-interest and watch as a new world is shaped. Whatever problems may come can be left for another day.

Topics