ETHICS OF ROBOTS

Humanology 1 (2025)  [75–85]

AUTHOR(S) / AUTOR(I): Antonino Drago

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/HumanologyI-1.075D

ABSTRACT / SAŽETAK:

This paper explores a multidimensional framework rooted in two foundational dichotomies: the distinction between potential infinity and actual infinity, and the organizational structure of scientific theories—either as deductive systems from axioms or as problem-oriented approaches. These dichotomies serve as a theoretical lens through which various domains—science, ethics, biology, and technology—are analyzed. Beginning with a critique of modern set theory and its reliance on actual infinity, the work contrasts it with the constructivist stance grounded in potential infinity, arguing that each implies different epistemological commitments and logical structures, particularly regarding undecidability and the law of double negation.The paper culminates in a critical reflection on the ethics of human-robot interaction.

KEYWORDS / KLJUČNE REČI:

Scientific Theory Models, Intuitionist Logic, Human-Robot Ethics, Consequentialist Ethics, Potential and Actual Infinity.

REFERENCES / LITERATURA:

  1. Benner S.A. (2010), “Defining Life”, Astrobiology, 10, pp. 1021-2030.
  2. Cohen P.J. (1963), „The independence of the Continuum Hypothesis, [part I]“. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 50 (6): 1143–
  3. Drago A. (1988), “A Characterization of Newtonian Paradigm, in P.B. Scheurer, O. Debrock (eds.): Newton’s Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, Kluwer Acad. P., 1988, pp. 239-252.
  4. Drago A. (2000), „Etica e scienza: loro fondazione comune secondo una visione pluralista“, in L. Chieffi (ed.): Bioetica, Paravia, Scriptorium, Torino, 303-331.
  5. Drago A. (2012), “The emergence of two dichotomys from Einstein’s first paper on Quanta”, in Pisano R., Capecchi D., Lukesova A. (eds.), Physics, Astronomy and Engineering. Critical Problems in the History of Science and Society, Siauliai: Scientia Socialis P., 2013, 227-234.
  6. Jonas H. (1979), Das Prinzip Verantwortung, (Engl. Tr. The Imperative of Responsibility, Chicago: U. Chicago P., 1984.
  7. Lanza del Vasto, Les Quatre Fléaux, Denoël, Paris, 1959.
  8. Longuet-Higgins C. (1969), “What biology is about” In Waddington C.H. (ed.) Towards a Theoretical Biology, vol. 2, p. 227. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  9. Mayr E. (1972), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, Lakonia NH: Belknap Press.
  10. Mayr E. (1996), “The Position of Biology among the Sciences“, Rev. of Biology, 71, pp. 97-106.
  11. Peirce C.S. (1887), “Logical Machines”, J. Psychology, 1, 165-170, pp. 168-169.
  12. Sgreccia E.: Manuale di Bioetica, Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1988, pp. 74-90.(Engl. Personalist Bioethics. Foundations and applications. Broomall PA: National Catholic Bioethics Center, pp. 43-53)