Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Artificial agents, good care, and modernity

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When is it ethically acceptable to use artificial agents in health care? This article articulates some criteria for good care and then discusses whether machines as artificial agents that take over care tasks meet these criteria. Particular attention is paid to intuitions about the meaning of ‘care’, ‘agency’, and ‘taking over’, but also to the care process as a labour process in a modern organizational and financial-economic context. It is argued that while there is in principle no objection to using machines in medicine and health care, the idea of them functioning and appearing as ‘artificial agents’ is problematic and attends us to problems in human care which were already present before visions of machine care entered the stage. It is recommended that the discussion about care machines be connected to a broader discussion about the impact of technology on human relations in the context of modernity.

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

References

  1. Anderson, Michael, and Susan Leigh Anderson. 2007. Machine ethics: creating an ethical intelligent agent. AI Magazine 28(4): 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wallach, Wendell, and Colin Allen. 2009. Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Sharkey, Amanda, and Noel Sharkey. 2010. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology 14(1): 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sparrow, Robert, and Linda Sparrow. 2006. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines 16: 141–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Whitby, Blay. 2011. Do you want a robot lover? In Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics, ed. Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George A. Bekey, 233–249. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beauchamp, Tom, and James F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benner, Patricia (ed.). 1994. Interpretive phenomenology: embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Noddings, Nel. 1982. Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tronto, Joan. 1994. Moral boundaries: a political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2013. E-care as craftsmanship: virtuous work, skilled engagement, and information technology in health care. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 16(4): 807–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dreyfus, Hubert L., and Stuart E. Dreyfus. 1991. Towards a phenomenology of ethical expertise. Human Studies 14(4): 229–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1999. Dependent rational animals: why human beings need the virtues. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ihde, Don. 1990. Technology and the lifeworld: from garden to earth. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Asaro, Peter M. 2006. What should we want from a robot ethic? International Review of Information Ethics 6(12): 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2009. Virtual moral agency, virtual moral responsibility. AI & Society 24(2): 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2010. Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics and Information Technology 12(3): 209–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2010. Moral appearances: emotions, robots, and human morality. Ethics and Information Technology 12(3): 235–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Torrance, Steve. 2008. Ethics and consciousness in artificial agents. AI & Society 22: 495–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sullins, John. 2006. When is a robot a moral agent? International Review of Information Ethics 6(12): 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Marx, Karl. 1959 [1927]. Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The question concerning technology. In The question concerning technology and other essays, trans. W. Lovitt, 3-35. New York: Harper & Row.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, 5.79 Gateway House, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK

    Mark Coeckelbergh

Authors
  1. Mark Coeckelbergh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Coeckelbergh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coeckelbergh, M. Artificial agents, good care, and modernity. Theor Med Bioeth 36, 265–277 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-015-9331-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-015-9331-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation