Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disengagement with ethics in robotics as a tacit form of dehumanisation

  • Open Forum
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past two decades, ethical challenges related to robotics technologies have gained increasing interest among different research and non-academic communities, in particular through the field of roboethics. While the reasons to address roboethics are clear, why not to engage with ethics needs to be better understood. This paper focuses on a limited or lacking engagement with ethics that takes place within some parts of the robotics community and its implications for the conceptualisation of the human being. The underlying assumption is that the term ‘ethical’ essentially means ‘human’. Thus, this paper discusses a working hypothesis according to which by avoiding to engage with roboethics, roboticists contribute to the tacit dehumanisation process emerging in and outside of robotics. An alternative approach includes ‘lived ethics’ which involves not only incorporating formal ethical approaches into the roboticists’ work but also ‘being’ ethical and actually engaging with ethical reflection and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term ‘ethics’ is viewed here as contained in the term ‘roboethics’ and in some contexts is used interchangeably.

References

  • Agamben G (2004) The open: man and animal. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Albarello F, Rubini M (2012) Reducing dehumanisation outcomes towards Blacks: the role of multiple categorisation and of human identity. Eur J Soc Psychol 42(7):875–882

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelucci A, Graziani P, Rossi MG (2016) The uncanny valley: a working hypothesis. In: Nørskov M (ed) Social robots. boundaries, potential, challenges. Routledge, London, pp 123–137

  • Arkin RC (2008) On the ethical quandaries of a practicing roboticist: a first-hand look. In: Proceedings of the 2008 conference on current issues in computing and philosophy, pp 45–49

  • Arkin RC (2009) Governing lethal behavior in autonomous robots. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press

  • Asaro P (2006) What should we want from a robot ethic? Int Rev Inf Ethics (IRIE) 6:9–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Asaro P (2012) On banning autonomous weapon systems: human rights, automation, and the dehumanization of lethal decision-making. Int Rev Red Cross 94(886):687–709

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain PG, Vaes J, Jacques-Philippe L (2014) Humanness and dehumanization. Psychology Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (2002) Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Moral Educ 31(2):101–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck C, Forlizzi J (2004) A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In: 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN2004), pp 591–594

  • Bers MU, Flannery L, Kazakoff ER, Sullivan A (2014) Computers & education computational thinking and tinkering: exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Comput Educ 72:145–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Billington R, Strawbridge S, Greensides L, Fitzsimons A (1991) Culture and society. A sociology of culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongard JC (2011) How evolution shapes the way roboticists think. Proc Comput Sci 7:8–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein J (2008) The ethics of autonomous military robots. Stud Ethics Law Technol. https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1036

  • Borenstein J, Pearson Y (2012) Robot caregivers: ethical issues across the human lifespan. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 251–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Breazeal C, Kidd CD, Thomaz AL, Hoffman G, Berlin M (2005) Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference On Intelligent Robots And Systems, IROS, pp 383–388

  • Brooks RA (1991) New approaches to robotics. Science 253(5025):1227–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RA (2000) Will robots rise up and demand their rights? The future of technology. Time Mag 155(25):54

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RA (2001) Steps towards living machines. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on evolutionary robotics from intelligent robotics to artificial life. Springer, pp 72–93

  • Brooks RA (2002) Flesh and machines: how robots will change us. Vintage Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugali D, Agah A, MacDonald B, Nesnas IAD, Smart WD (2007) Trends in robot software domain engineering. Softw Eng Exp Robot 30:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JJ (2010) Robots should be slaves. In: Wilks Y (ed) Close engagements with artificial companions: key social, psychological, ethical and design issues. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 63–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JJ (2012) The making of the EPSRC principles of robotics. AISB Q 133(133):14–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Capurro R, Hausmanninger T, Weber K, Weil F (eds) (2006) Ethics in robotics. Int Rev Inf Ethics 6(12/2006)

  • Casey B (2017) Amoral machines, or: how roboticists can learn to stop worrying and love the law. Northwest Univ Law Rev 111(5):1347–1366

    Google Scholar 

  • Cech E (2014) Culture of Disengagement In Engineering Education? Sci Technol Hum Values 39(1):42–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheon EJ, Su NM (2016) Integrating roboticist values into a value sensitive design framework for humanoid robots. In: The 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI2011), pp 603–604

  • Cheon EJ, Su NM (2017) Configuring the user: “Robots have needs too”. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, CSCW, pp 191–206

  • Coeckelbergh M (2010) Robot rights? Toward a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics Inf Technol 12(3):209–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook GA (1993) George Herbert Mead: the making of a social pragmatist. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Culbertson L (2007) “Humanness”, “dehumanisation” and performance enhancement. Sport Ethics Philos 1(2):195–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 362(1480):679–704

    Google Scholar 

  • Dautenhahn K (2013) 38. Human-robot interaction. In: The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction, 2nd edn

  • Davis M (1991) Thinking like an engineer: the role a code of ethics plays in the practice of a profession. Philos Public Aff 20(2):150–167

    Google Scholar 

  • DeepMind (2019) Deep mind. https://deepmind.com/. Accessed 1 Feb 2019

  • Dirican C (2015) The impacts of robotics, artificial intelligence on business and economics. Proc Soc Behav Sci 195:564–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodig-Crnkovic G (2008) Sharing moral responsibility with robots: a pragmatic approach. In: 10th Scandinavian conference on artificial intelligence (SCAI2008), pp 165–168

  • Dodig-Crnkovic G, Çürüklü B (2012) Robots: ethical by design. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):61–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey GL, Lucena JC, Mitcham C (2007) Engineering ethics and identity: emerging initiativesin comparative perspective. Sci Eng Ethics 13(4):463–487

    Google Scholar 

  • EAD (2018) Ethically aligned design. A vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems. Version 2. In: The IEEE global initiative on ethics of autonomous and intelligent system. IEEE.

  • Ellul J (1964) The technological society. Vintage Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • EPSRC Principles of robotics (2010) Engineering and Physical Science Research Council website. https://epsrc.ukri.org/research/ourportfolio/themes/engineering/activities/principlesofrobotics/. Accessed 15 Nov 2019

  • Esses VM, Medianu S, Lawson AS (2013) Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the media in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. J Soc Issues 69(3):518–536

    Google Scholar 

  • euRobotics (2014) Strategic research agenda for robotics in Europe 2014–2020. SPARC

  • European Commision (2019) Robotics: Horizon2020. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/robotics. Accessed 1 Feb 2019

  • Fischer R (2009) Where is culture in cross cultural research?: an outline of a multilevel research process for measuring culture as a shared meaning system. Int J Cross Cult Manag 9(1):25–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe DE (2001) Studying those who study us: an anthropologist in the world of artificial intelligence. In: Writing science. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California

  • Geller EJ, Matthews CA (2013) Impact of robotic operative efficiency on profitability. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 209(1):20.e1–20.e5

    Google Scholar 

  • Gennert MA, Tryggvason G (2009) Robotics engineering: a discipline whose time has come. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 16(2):18–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1996) Mind as computer: birth of a metaphor. Creat Res J 9(2):131–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich MA, Olsen DR (2003) Seven principles of efficient human-robot interaction. Proc IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern 4:3943–3948

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich MA, Schultz AC (2007) Human-robot interaction: a survey. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact 1(3):203–275

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Handbook of qualitative research, pp 105–117

  • Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 10(3):252–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam N, Loughnan S (2014) Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annu Rev Psychol 65(1):399–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasse C (2019) The multi-variation approach. Paladyn J Behav Robot 10(1):219–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman J (2012) Q & A Maja Matarić: the social roboticist. Nature 488:280

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram B, Jones D, Lewis A, Richards M, Rich C, Schachterle L (2010) A code of ethics for robotics engineers. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI2010), pp 103–104

  • Ishihara K, Fukushi T (2010) Introduction: roboethics as an emerging field of ethics of technology. Account Res 17(6):273–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeschke S, Kato A, Knipping L (2008) The engineers of tomorrow teaching robotics to primary school children. In: Proceedings of the SEFI 36th annual conference, pp 1–4

  • Jones RA (2018) Engineering cheerful robots: an ethical consideration. Information 9(7):152

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung SE, Won ES (2018) Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability 10(4):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaerlein A (2015) Minimizing the human? Functional reductions of complexity in social robotics and their cybernetic heritage. In: Vincent J, Taipale S, Sapio B, Lugano G, Fortunati L (eds) Social robots from a human perspective. Springer, pp 77–88

  • Keijsers M, Bartneck C (2018) Mindless robots get bullied. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI2018), pp 205–214

  • Khatib O, Christensen H (2010) The robotics community: IFRR update. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 17(1):11–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes P, Light A, Moore SA, Vermaas P (2008) Design in engineering and architecture. Towards an integrated philosophical understanding. In: Vermaas PE, Kroes P, Light A, Moore SA (eds) Philosophy and design. From engineering to architecture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronfeldner M (2016) The politics of human nature. In: Tibayrenc M, Ayala FJ (eds) On human nature: biology, psychology, ethics, politics, and religion. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 625–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Kteily N, Bruneau E, Waytz A, Cotterill S (2015) “The Ascent of Man”: theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. J Pers Soc Psychol 109(5):901–931

    Google Scholar 

  • La Mettrie JO (1996) La mettrie: man a machine and other writings (A. Thomson, Ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Lin P (2012) Introduction to robot ethics. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (eds) Robot Ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin P (2015) Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In: Maurer M, Gerdes JC, Lenz B, Winner H (eds) Autonomous driving: technical, legal and social aspects. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin P, Abney K, Bekey G (2011) Robot ethics: mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artif Intell 175(5–6):942–949

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin P, Abney K, Jenkins R (2017) Robot ethics 2.0: from autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindseth A, Norberg A (2004) A phenomenological hermeneutical method for researching lived experience. Scand J Caring Sci 18(2):145–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas B, Hanson J, Claxton G (2014) Thinking like an engineer: implications for the education system. In: A report for the Royal Academy of Engineering Standing Committee for Education and Training. Royal Academy of Engineering

  • McCauley L (2007) AI armageddon and the three laws of robotics. Ethics Inf Technol 9(2):153–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel HC, Aaltio I, Ulijn JM (2007) On the way to creativity: engineers as intrapreneurs in organizations. Technovation 27(12):732–743

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley M (1994) The ethical primate: humans, freedom and morality. Routledge, London and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller KW, Wolf MJ, Grodzinsky F (2017) This “ethical trap” is for roboticists, not robots: on the issue of artificial agent ethical decision-making. Sci Eng Ethics 23:389–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon A, Calisgan E, Operto F, Veruggio G, van der Loos HFM (2012) Open roboethics: establishing an online community for accelerated policy and design change. In: We Robot, pp 1–6

  • Nakada M (2010) Different discussions on roboethics and information ethics based on different cultural contexts (BA). In: Proceedings cultural attitudes towards communication and technology, pp 300–314

  • Nevejans N (2016) European Civil Law Rules in Robotics. Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. European Parliament

  • Newberry B (2004) The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Sci Eng Ethics 10(2):343–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble SU (2018) Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2018) OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018. Adapting to technological and societal disruption. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker M (2007) Ethnography/ethics. Soc Sci Med 65:2248–2259

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson AL (2001) Being human: ethics, environment, and our place in the world. University of California Press, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Riek LD, Howard, D. (2014). A code of ethics for the human-robot interaction profession. In: We Robot conference,pp 1–10

  • Royakkers L, van Est R (2015) A literature review on new robotics: automation from love to war. Int J Soc Robot 7(5):549–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):439–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Šabanović S (2014) Inventing Japan’s “robotics culture”: The repeated assembly of science, technology, and culture in social robotics. Soc Stud Sci 44(3):342–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainz M, Loughnan S, Eyssel F, Pina A (2019) We share the euro, but not our humanity: humanity attributions are associated with the perceived causes, consequences, and solution to the Greek financial crisis. Soc Sci J 1–15

  • Santoni de Sio F, van Wynsberghe A (2016) When should we use care robots? The nature-of-activities approach. Sci Eng Ethics 22(2):1745–1760

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt JA (2014) Changing the paradigm for engineering ethics. Sci Eng Ethics 20(4):985–1010

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciavicco L, Siciliano B (2000) Modelling and control of robot manipulators, 2nd edn. Springer, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):27–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw-Garlock G (2009) Looking forward to sociable robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:249–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Siege M (2003) The sense-think-act paradigm revisited. In: International workshop on robotic sensing (ROSE2003).

  • SoftBankRobotics (2018) About Us. https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/about-us. Accessed 28 June 2018

  • Sorenson J (2008) Decisions and values: engineering design as a pragmatic and sociomaterial negotiation process. In: REELER working paper series, No. 4. Aarhus University, Copenhagen

  • Sorenson J (2019) Toward a pragmatic and social engineering ethics: ethnography as provocation. Paladyn J Behav Robot 10(1):207–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow R (2007) Killer robots. J Appl Philos 24(1):62–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Special Eurobarometer 382 (2012) Public attitudes towards robots. TNS Opinion & Social. September 2012

  • Statement (2018) Statement on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and ‘Autonomous’ System. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. European Commission

  • Steinert S (2014) The five robots—a taxonomy for roboethics. Int J Soc Robot 6(2):249–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Struch N, Schwartz SH (1989) Intergroup aggression: its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. J Pers Soc Psychol 56(3):364–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullins JP (2015) Applied professional ethics for the reluctant roboticist. In: The emerging policy and ethics of human-robot interaction workshop

  • Sullins JP (2016) Ethics boards for research in robotics and artificial intelligence: is it too soon to act? In: Nørskov M (ed) Social robots: boundaries, potential, challenges. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Szollosy M (2017) EPSRC principles of robotics: defending an obsolete human(ism)? Connect Sci 29(2):150–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Taipale S, de Luca F, Sarrica M, Fortunati L (2015) Robot shift from industrial production to social reproduction. In: Vincent J, Taipale S, Sapio B, Lugano G, Fortunati L, Vincent J, Lugano G (eds) Social robots from a human perspective. Springer, pp 11–24

  • Tanaka F, Kimura T (2009) The use of robots in early education: a scenario based on ethical consideration. In: Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 558–560

  • IEEE-RAS Technical Committee for Robot Ethics (2019) https://www.ieee-ras.org/robot-ethics. Accessed 15 Nov 2019

  • Thimbleby H (2008) Robot ethics? Not yet. A reflection on Whitby’s “Sometimes it’s hard to be a robot”. Interact Comput 20(3):338–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Toms JS (2010) Calculating profit: A historical perspective on the development of capitalism. Acc Organ Soc 35(2):205–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzafestas SG (2018) Roboethics: fundamental concepts and future prospects. Information 9(6):148

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart L, Reedman-Flint D, Leesakul N (2019) Responsible domestic robotics: exploring ethical implications of robots in the home. J Inf Commun Eth Soc 17(2):246–272

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Plas A, Smits M, Wehrmann C (2010) Beyond speculative robot ethics: a vision assessment study on the future of the robotic caretaker. Account Res 17(6):299–315

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gorp A, van de Poel I (2008) Deciding on ethical issues in engineering design. In: Vermaas PE, Kroes P, Light A, Moore SA (eds) Philosophy and design. From engineering to architecture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 77–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Vangelova L (2018) Robotics engineer. Navigating the past and the future. Sci Teach 85(1):53–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Veruggio G (2005) The birth of roboethics. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, workshop on roboethics, pp 1–4

  • Veruggio G (2006) The EURON roboethics roadmap. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots (HUMANOIDS2006), pp 612–617

  • Veruggio G, Operto F (2008) Roboethics: social and ethical implications of robotics. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1499–1524

    Google Scholar 

  • Veruggio G, Solis J, van Der Loos HFM (2011) Roboethics: ethics applied to robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):21–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Vesilind PA, Gunn AS (1998) Engineering, ethics, and the environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • von Heinegg WH, Frau R, Singer T (eds) (2017) Dehumanization of warfare: legal implications of new weapon technologies. Springer

  • Wallace J (2019) Ethics and inscription in social robot design. A visual ethnography. Paladyn J Behav Robot 10(1):66–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallach A, Allen C (2009) Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Waytz A, Epley N (2012) Social connection enables dehumanization. J Exp Soc Psychol 48(1):70–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Waytz A, Schroeder J (2014) Overlooking others: dehumanization by comission and omission. TPM Test Psychometr Methodol Appl Psychol 21(3):251–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Weng YH (2010) Beyond robot ethics: on a legislative consortium for social robotics. Adv Robot 24(13):1919–1926

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker M, Crawford K, Dobbe R, Fried G, Kaziunas E, Mathur V, West SM, Richardson SR, Schultz J, Schwartz O (2018) AI Now Report 2018. AI Now Institute, December 2018

  • Wilson S, Haslam N (2009) Is the future more or less human? Differing views of humanness in the posthumanism debate. J Theory Soc Behav 39(2):247–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Winfield A (2019) An updated roundup of ethical principles of robotics and AI. https://robohub.org/an-updated-round-up-of-ethical-principles-of-robotics-and-ai/v. Accessed 15 Aug 2019

  • Winfield A, Jirotka M (2018) Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 376(2133):20180085

    Google Scholar 

  • Winfield A, McDermid J, Müller VC, Porter Z, Pipe T (2019) UK-RAS network: ethical issues for robotics and autonomous systems

  • Wittgenstein L (1965) A lecture on ethics. Philos Rev 74(1):3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu YH, Fassert C, Rigaud AS (2012) Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 54(1):121–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynsberghe A, Sharkey N (2016) Responsible robotics: bridging the gap between moral philosophy and applied ethics in robotics. In: Seibt J, Nørskov M, Andersen SS (eds) What social robots can and should do. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 393–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Zawieska K (2018) Is roboethics really optional? An alternative HRI methodology: the use of ethnography to identify and address ethical, legal, societal (ELS) issues workshop at the 13th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI2018)

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been part of the REELER project—Responsible Ethical Learning with Robotics. This project has received funding from the Europeans Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 731726.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

    Karolina Zawieska

Authors
  1. Karolina Zawieska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karolina Zawieska.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zawieska, K. Disengagement with ethics in robotics as a tacit form of dehumanisation. AI & Soc 35, 869–883 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01000-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01000-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation