The Robot Paradox – Part 1

Philosophers have been debating about rich philosophy for nearly two thousand and five hundred years. On the set of 19th century, philosophy has been largely enriched onward, including German and French thinkers into the postmodernism.The question of philosophy in the 21st century setting is, then, an unlike period in the humankind history. The question itself, is, in a beg of wonderment. What lies in the future? Science of mechanic engineering is moving on rapidly. It is as if it is devouring the very foundation of civilizations, and, of most importance, economics itself.

How do we proceed from thereon? It is complex one. Not only does it require a grandeur class of philosophy, it also need to be analyzed not once. Twice might even be a minor thinking. In the modern era, the very procession of technology is being updated from six months up to three years. That’s how the capitalism of IT community thrive; yet technology would be innovated and renewed to its advancement in only few years.

The philosophy, then, is necessary to be reviewed. Our world in the ethics of technology is very unlike those of 1980s; for this reason I attempt to initialize a question: to what point does, if eventually achieved, a cyborg or robot have place in the humankind?

For instance: how do I bring the issue of ethics among cyborgs, or machine-people? Can they tell right from wrong? Or can they be achieved to the level of complex human mind? Such art of “wrong” and “right” is a blurry boundary line between every human species. Of the entire humankind history, the law of rights and wrongs shaped the tree of civilizations. Roots have its own births; they give the fertility of civilizations throughout history.

Imagine a scene: suppose that there is an art of right and wrong. If robots are programmed to serve consumers alcoholic beverages; yet they can’t drink them, simply because it would cause malfunctions or erroneous damages to their systems. Therefore, robots would conclude, they can’t drink alcohol because it would terminate their systems. If that is a case, will it also force a moral obligation on human beings, under the presence of their “human-like” thinking? In another words, would robots, or cyborgs, consider themselves humans, when such an ethical issue that block the social life of human alcoholism?

Of course, there is much more to the ethical issues than just laws on robot-ism or mechanical engineered likes. Example: is it possible for a cyborg, or robot, to be suicidal? This is more of artificial bioethics, than an actual issue of bioethics. Where and how do we mix them in the 21st century setting?

Naturally, much more sensitive subject would arise in the neo-human species: how do genetic-engineered humans would feel in the presence of environment? That is another story.