David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):123-137 (2013)
In this article, the authors examine whether and how robot caregivers can contribute to the welfare of children with various cognitive and physical impairments by expanding recreational opportunities for these children. The capabilities approach is used as a basis for informing the relevant discussion. Though important in its own right, having the opportunity to play is essential to the development of other capabilities central to human flourishing. Drawing from empirical studies, the authors show that the use of various types of robots has already helped some children with impairments. Recognizing the potential ethical pitfalls of robot caregiver intervention, however, the authors examine these concerns and conclude that an appropriately designed robot caregiver has the potential to contribute positively to the development of the capability to play while also enhancing the ability of human caregivers to understand and interact with care recipients
|Keywords||Robot ethics Robot caregivers The capability to play Disability Capabilities approach|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Yvette Pearson (2010). Robot Caregivers: Harbingers of Expanded Freedom for All? [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 12 (3):277-288.
E. Kubinyi, P. Pongracz & A. Miklosi (2010). Can You Kill a Robot Nanny?: Ethological Approach to the Effect of Robot Caregivers on Child Development and Human Evolution. Interaction Studies 11 (2):214-219.
Yusuke Moriguchi, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Yoko Shimada & Shoji Itakura (2011). Can Young Children Learn Words From a Robot? Interaction Studies 12 (1):107-118.
Bram Vanderborght, Ramona Simut, Jelle Saldien, Cristina Pop, Alina S. Rusu, Sebastian Pintea, Dirk Lefeber & Daniel O. David (2012). Using the Social Robot Probo as a Social Story Telling Agent for Children with ASD. Interaction Studies 13 (3):348-372.
Christopher Grau (2011). There is No 'I' in 'Robot': Robots and Utilitarianism (Expanded & Revised). In Susan Anderson & Michael Anderson (eds.), Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press. 451.
Patrizia Marti (2010). Robot Companions: Towards a New Concept of Friendship? Interaction Studies 11 (2):220-226.
Shaun Gallagher (2013). You and I, Robot. AI and Society 28 (4):455-460.
Noel Sharkey & Amanda Sharkey (2010). The Crying Shame of Robot Nannies: An Ethical Appraisal. Interaction Studies 11 (2):161-190.
Robert Sparrow (2002). The March of the Robot Dogs. Ethics and Information Technology 4 (4):305-318.
Adriana Tapus, Andreea Peca, Amir Aly, Cristina Pop, Lavinia Jisa, Sebastian Pintea, Alina S. Rusu & Daniel O. David (2012). Children with Autism Social Engagement in Interaction with Nao, an Imitative Robot: A Series of Single Case Experiments. Interaction Studies 13 (3):315-347.
Germund Hesslow & D.-A. Jirenhed (2007). The Inner World of a Simple Robot. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (7):85-96.
Stephen Petersen (2007). The Ethics of Robot Servitude. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 19 (1):43-54.
M. van Hees (2013). Rights, Goals, and Capabilities. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (3):247-259.
James Gips (1994). Toward the Ethical Robot. In Kenneth M. Ford, C. Glymour & Patrick Hayes (eds.), Android Epistemology. MIT Press.
Mark Coeckelbergh (2011). Human Development or Human Enhancement? A Methodological Reflection on Capabilities and the Evaluation of Information Technologies. Ethics and Information Technology 13 (2):81-92.
Added to index2011-09-19
Total downloads9 ( #126,661 of 1,008,723 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,702 of 1,008,723 )
How can I increase my downloads?