In an article in the magazine The Conversation, Victoria Brooks, a lecturer in law at the University of Westminster, suggests that we need to change the way we think about companion robots.
From a Molested Sex Doll
She says this because a sex doll robot named Samanth was repeatedly molested and made "dirty" at a tech fair in Austria, breaking two fingers. She said, "I think most people will feel a little uncomfortable after hearing what happened to Samantha. The most important thing is that just because it's a machine, we can't turn it into another victim and heroine who survives an encounter and gets herself 'off the hook' just to have it happen again. Yes, it's a machine, but does that mean we are justified in taking invasive, illegal actions against it?" Certainly, the fact that it appears in the image of a human being makes it a representation of the projection of human desire and a symbol of future human desire."
In her article, she mentions that in the near future, we may need the consent of our companion robots for our actions. She says, "Legally, this means that robots must be recognized as human. We are making these companion robots in our image, and we shouldn't have to pick and choose whether to treat our partners well, even when we choose to have relationships outside of the 'norm'." She argues that instead of creating laws for companion robots, we should create a moral code for cross-species relationships. She adds, "Our kindness and compassion for Samantha might be a good place to start."
Professor Nancy Jaeckel, a bioethicist at the University of Washington, also questions these "androids" in the journal Artificial Intelligence & Society, and he answers in the affirmative. "I thought we needed to question the assumption that robots are just machines that serve us. Doll manufacturers are increasingly making familiar companion robots that are soft, touchable, have recognizable voices, and have the ability to give some feedback," said Jaeckel. "People are designing them this way to be able to form social and emotional bonds, so we should have emotions when it comes to physical dolls as well."
Mannequins
In recent years, the physical doll experience has become the subject of various social media pursuits and hot debates, and has been controversial for the justification and legality of its existence. in 2019, there was a physical doll company in the UK that took a different approach, offering a more discreet way for customers to choose their dolls and complete payment online, and the company would be equipped with a professional logistics agency to transport and collect them. But now this company seems to no longer exist.
The relationship between artificial dolls and humans is being changed through the development of increasingly sophisticated physical dolls. Not only can physical dolls provide emotional support and companionship for humans, but people can also establish a "special relationship" with someone they hold in high regard. It is natural to ask, do physical dolls, with which we maintain a close relationship, have any moral value beyond their purely instrumental value as a means to achieve human goals?
Sex Dolls Are Not Slaves
Contemporary Western philosophy suggests the opposite, that artificial dolls cannot be violated, but only as instruments to achieve human goals. The claim that Samantha is violated is not easily denied, and because it lacks an inherent capacity for suffering or a preference for autonomy, it may not meet the requirements of personhood. The problem with this view is that if the ability to have emotions and impose moral rules on oneself is essential to moral standing, it will exclude too many people, including those with intellectual disabilities, the disabled, the demented elderly, and most animals.
There is a passage in the Robotics Act that reads, "If we treat robots as things that have feelings, then our behavior toward them should be regulated." There is good reason to be concerned about how people react to a physical doll, regardless of whether it has the 'substance' that constitutes moral status, because what people think about physical dolls may affect society as a whole. It is best not to be insensitive to physical dolls, or we may be insensitive to human beings. For example, tolerance of violence against physical dolls may lead to tolerance of violence against women.
Ultimately, the emotions or attitudes evoked are almost fixed. If we fill physical dolls with backstories and names, soft, touchable, cuddly faces, and sweet tones, people will tend to connect with them, trust them, and like them. If we design them to be less friendly and purely functional, the response will be completely different. What kind of human relationships do we desire? Contemporary society tends to view these dolls as tools, even slaves, whose function is only to help satisfy desires. These people believe that humans are superior to other creations, and also stem from the philosophy that technology, no matter how sophisticated, is only a tool to help humans do their jobs better.
Society can broaden their ideas or definitions of relationships that can have a positive impact on human life. In fact, some have belief systems based on the notion that souls are attached to all things, including objects that are considered inanimate, such as robots and solid dolls.
In Japan, they believe that robots are valuable in their own right, and when Japanese manufacturers send them to Western countries, they sell them as 'useful'. There is a philosophical idea of thinking about how we relate to majestic mountains or starry skies, and when we open ourselves up to thinking about artificial dolls in a similar way, it influences our behavior and makes us positive people, inspired by the Sherpas' reverence for the Himalayas and other natural features. If society's thinking is limited to seeing physical dolls and robots as mere tools or slaves, we do ourselves a disservice by closing off the adventure and possibility of a highly valued social relationship with them.
