{"title":"机器人在道德和法律体系中的地位","authors":"Katarzyna Ginszt","doi":"10.14746/eip.2019.2.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"David J. Gunkel in his latest book Robot Rights presents the opportunities and challenges of integrating robots into moral and legal systems. The research question asked by the author is “Can and should robots have rights”? Following the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought”, Gunkel creates four statements that either opt for or against incorporating robots into legal discourse. The four modalities group contrasting opinions developed by different scholars on the subject of the eponymous robot rights. The author provides readers with yet another alternative approach to the question of legal recognition of robots which is based on Levinasian philosophy.","PeriodicalId":36100,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Progress","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Status of Robots in Moral and Legal Systems\",\"authors\":\"Katarzyna Ginszt\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/eip.2019.2.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"David J. Gunkel in his latest book Robot Rights presents the opportunities and challenges of integrating robots into moral and legal systems. The research question asked by the author is “Can and should robots have rights”? Following the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought”, Gunkel creates four statements that either opt for or against incorporating robots into legal discourse. The four modalities group contrasting opinions developed by different scholars on the subject of the eponymous robot rights. The author provides readers with yet another alternative approach to the question of legal recognition of robots which is based on Levinasian philosophy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics in Progress\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics in Progress\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2019.2.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics in Progress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2019.2.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
David J. Gunkel在他的新书《机器人权利》中提出了将机器人融入道德和法律体系的机遇和挑战。作者提出的研究问题是“机器人可以和应该有权利”?根据休谟对“是”和“应该”的区分，冈克尔提出了四种观点，要么支持，要么反对将机器人纳入法律话语。这四种模式集合了不同学者对同名机器人权利的不同看法。作者为读者提供了另一种基于列文哲学的机器人法律承认问题的替代方法。
David J. Gunkel in his latest book Robot Rights presents the opportunities and challenges of integrating robots into moral and legal systems. The research question asked by the author is “Can and should robots have rights”? Following the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought”, Gunkel creates four statements that either opt for or against incorporating robots into legal discourse. The four modalities group contrasting opinions developed by different scholars on the subject of the eponymous robot rights. The author provides readers with yet another alternative approach to the question of legal recognition of robots which is based on Levinasian philosophy.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
