Theology, Robot Rights, Philosophy, Social Commentary
The problem with believing in a higher power is that there is evil in the world. Children die. Ice caps melt driving innocent animals into extinction. I mean look at Covid; it targets the good and the bad alike.
To state all this destruction is part of some greater plan is to make someone else responsible for all the world's ills. That brings with it difficult questions. Is every instance of suffering really necessary? Was there really no better way, a way that imposed even slightly less pain? Some say it's not for us to judge. If that were true, then children shouldn't challenge aggressive parenting techniques as they grow up; the fact they carry scars from the biting leather of a belt and regularly carry black eyes with them to school is irrelevant. But abused children should be able to come forward and challenge their caregivers. Questioning parenting techniques is simply an essential tool to ensure their protection Now what I'm not saying is that God or some other divine being is abusive. Pretty much every religion promotes the existence of some omnibenevolent being.
At this point, I will give my usual disclaimer. I am not a Christian. My religious beliefs are entirely agnostic towards the existence of God or any sort of divine beings. More specifically, I do not claim to know anything about those beings— for all I know, the Ancient Greeks were correct all those years ago. Whatever discussion follows will probably use the Christian concept of God as a baseline. Please do not take that as an insult. Having grown up in the South West of England, Christianity simply happens to be the religion I know most about. Rather than trying to insult through omitting Hinduism or reference to the quran (to give but two examples), I'm ensuring my ignorance doesn't cause me to make wild claims and accusations. With that said, I will attempt to keep the discussion as broad as possible. Having got that out of the way, let's get started.
Few people dispute the existence of evil. I've already listed several examples. For more proof, just look at any historical event. World War 1 and 2. The Spanish Flu. The assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and JFK. British colonialism. Get the picture? Nobody's life is perfect. Be it world shattering moments or a collection of little things, we all experience evil.
Wait a second. We all experience evil. That statement might not seem significant, but it enables us to draw an important conclusion. If everybody suffers evil, it may be that life without evil is impossible. Even something as innocuous as a cow commits evil by producing greenhouse gases. God (or the universe creator) is omnipotent. That means they have the power to do anything that is possible. Our claim that life necessarily entails evil means a living planet could not occur without there being evil. One necessarily entails the other.
In a nutshell, what I've just presented is a very simplistic solution to the problem of evil. I won't be exploring that rabbit hole in more depth now. For anybody interested, a few of my older articles discuss the dilemma in slightly more detail. Why I bring up the issue at all is that it demonstrates why the quantitative problem of evil is the more taxing of the two. Yes, evil must exist, but do we really need so much of it? Surely a tiny bit of evil, like the occasional paper cut, would be enough.
For today's article to work, I will need to contradict myself. Previously I've argued robots should have rights because they are capable of having souls. That's a very strange conclusion to draw I know. Basically, God created man and man created machines. Because God can create souls and man was created in the image of God, that means mankind can also make souls. Trust me when I say the full article makes the argument seem more compelling. Again, bringing this up is not just a self-promoting tangent. I wanted to bring up the contradiction myself before the angry comments started. The two arguments are not meant to work together. They are what lawyers call alternatives. If I've convinced you that robots have souls, perfect. If not, then hopefully framing robot rights as a necessary evil is more to your liking.You read that right. This short thesis involves conceding that robotic personhood is evil. With that statement, I've just given up a whole chunk of ground. However, recovering is actually fairly straightforward. That's because the quantitative problem of evil can be solved by considering the purpose of evil.
To borrow an example from Aristotle, a good knife is one that cuts well. Similarly, a good person is one who lives life well, helping others and enjoying the fullness of life. For someone to truly have the characteristics of a good person, there are times where they must be willing to sacrifice for the benefit of others. With me so far? Now I have to take this style of reasoning a step further. To test a knife, you have to cut stuff with it. In a kitchen filled with pre-cut meats and vegetables, a knife, no matter how good, is worthless— there is nothing for it to do. People are the same. In a perfect world, a world with no adversity or suffering, good people are unnecessary. They just sit around twiddling their thumbs.
"But Toby," I hear you say "people could still be good without having to practice goodness. A knife is still sharp if it never has to cut anything." Correct. Like a good knife, good people need not spend every living moment volunteering and helping old ladies cross the road. Think about this though. A knife that is never used will eventually go rusty and dull in its case. If a good person never has to be good, they will slowly lose their edge until whatever goodness once resided in them has fled to the four corners of the wind. Retired athletes are unable to reach the same milestones they once could. Adults cannot do trigonometry as well as they could when they were in school. The reason there is so much evil in the world is that humanity cannot be allowed to lose their morality. Mere papercuts do not require the necessary level of sacrifice.
Where do robot rights fit into all this? I'm glad you asked, mysterious, rhetorical voice. Unfortunately, this is where I have to go slightly Christian centric again. The Bible states that many things are immoral. We shouldn't covet our neighbours' wives or eat seafood. On some readings, homosexuality or being the wrong race is also bad. I'm not saying I agree with all of these statements. Many Christians challenge at least a few of them. My point is, the Bible forbids or discourages a lot of stuff. Robot rights is probably on that list (although, if anything, the ban will be implied). You know what the Bible also says though. Love thy neighbour.
I can guarantee I've just ruffled some feathers. What I'm suggesting is that the second commandment prevents us casting judgement on the sins of others. Certainly, the suggestion is not a new one. The phrase "love thy neighbour" is often plastered on a sign protesting against this or that. Take gay marriage for example. It may well be sinful for two people of the same sex to join themselves in holy matrimony but to truly love one another, humanity has to be able to accept an individual's flaws with compassion and good grace. To confirm, I personally don't have anything against gay marriage. Consenting adults should be able to bind themselves to whomever they wish in whatever way they wish. Love is not a uniform concept. My point is that only God can judge a person's actions. All anyone of us can do is try and live as morally as possible, doing whatever that entails.
Awarding robots rights is simply an extension of this logic. Remember when I modified Pascal's Wager to argue treating robots as having souls is the only option. Well I'm reiterating that idea. So long as my conduct doesn't involve some form of moral harm to you, I should be free to do as I wish. If giving robots rights is evil, it is only evil in the sense that an outstandingly moral individual would not support those rights. However, because an individual's moral standing is an intensely personal thing. The sins of the father do not carry onto the son. I am not my brother's keeper.
Moreover, if giving machines rights is morally wrong according to divine law, then we must ask ourselves an important question— is there greater moral value in fixing an evil or ensuring that evil never occurs? What I mean is that evil's continued existence acts as a sort of training ground for each generation. As I've already said, without evil, humanity would eventually decay into a state of moral indifference. It is only through the existence of sin that the righteous may rise up. Specifically, if robots are never given rights, then humanity deprives itself of a valuable opportunity to demonstrate it's compassion. Remember in school when they would go on about the good Samaritan. To the Samaritan, the Christian lying on the road would have been less. Nevertheless, rather than condemning the poor man for their supposed sins, the Samaritan acted with unconditional love. All beings should be awarded this same compassion, not for the sake of whatever being given compassion but for the sake of the compassionate. Robots may well be evil. It is for humanity to rise above that evil and turn the other cheek.
Let me make one thing crystal clear. I'm not convinced that giving robots rights is sinful or evil or immoral. Quite the opposite, I believe robot rights is a necessary step in achieving enlightenment. Rather, today has been about creating a fallback position, a last line of defence if you will. Even if every other justification for robot rights fails, they should still be awarded because that is the only way we can effectively turn the other cheek. Only God can judge sins and evil. It is for mankind to act as responsibly as possible and hope that that is enough.