Your post makes some interesting points and it is definitely a topic that would invite much debate. From my standpoint I would have to say a firm 'NO'. We could create machines that think like humans, act like humans, and maybe even look like humans but at the core of the topic is this one absolute truth - they are still machines created by humans. You wouldn't give rights to your phone or your television. Why is a robot any different? Because they can move and think? They were programmed to be what they are and even if they are able to advance their own knowledge past their core programming the core is still there. If they make poor decisions then why should we need a court of law to decide their fate? They are machines. Machines break down. A robot, even one that has the capabilities of being 'almost human' is still going to wear down. At that point it would get turned off and recycled to make the next generation of machines. It would be silly to consider a robot as a slave or an equal. He is not a living thing. A robot would be a tool no matter how advanced or how close to the human being it becomes.
And what about the point you raised about 'a jury of peers' wouldn't that just be twelve robots deciding the fate of one robot? The variables that are there for human criminals would not play a factor in the level of guilt or innocence for robots. They could never understand crimes of passion or revenge. The thinking would be all analytical. You did it, you're guilty. You didn't, you're not. Black and white. No gray area. No, robots should never have rights such as humans for so many reasons but the main one is because they will always just be machines.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: