On Thursday, someone brought up a very interesting point on why we keep trying to make robots human. And I felt this was a very legitimate question because robots are not human. There are intrinsic differences, differences of definition that make the two categories completely non-superimposable. A robot just isn’t a human. They can look like humans, look like them, live like them, and die like them, but they are still manufactured. A robot can have intelligence and consciousness, but that does not make them a human. So why do we keep saying that they’re human?
Maybe everyone else has figured this out already, but I realized during that class that we don’t have another way of speaking about them that imparts equality. Our discourse centers around robots becoming human because we don’t know another way to express that they are almost entirely just like us, but are still different (however, those differences don’t make them our inferiors) and we all deserve the same right.
In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Rick finds it so abhorrent and tries very hard not to empathize with robots, because to empathize with something is to acknowledge it as a living creature, since only living beings can have emotions. You do not empathize with a rock. You do not empathize with a hunk of metal. You do not empathize with plastic, or wool, or cellulose.
If we are to empathize with robots without identifying them as human, we are identifying them as a “lower” being, such as a pet or an animal. Something that we know an still feel pain, but considered somehow lesser than us. The value of an animal’s life is generally considered to be less than that of a human’s. We speak of robots as humans because we are a one-species dominated planet. Anything non-human has the connotations of being under our control.
Passing 4 
I’m glad you brought up the comparison between animals and robots, because I think it’s an interesting one to try to figure out. Maybe this isn’t the right way to think about it, but I’ve wondered which ranks higher in this sort of hierarchy of being that you bring up – animals or humanoid robots?
I don’t think robots are necessarily on par with animals when thinking about “lower” beings. Based on what we’ve read, I would argue that humans consider animals to be “lower” on the hierarchy than robots because robots are created by humans and, in many respects, are created to at least simulate humans. Animals seem less threatening, therefore they’re considered much lower in the hierarchy.
I think the idea of true equality only extending to other humans makes a lot of sense, and fits in nicely with our “Western liberal discourse” about the ideality of the individual. While this discourse allows for the granting of equality to other humans regardless of their race, language, religion etc. by virtue of possessing a uniquely “human” consciousness, robots do not share this trait, and likely never will.
Even in Bicentennial Man (the movie), Andrew can’t “swap out” his positronic brain for a real one because this would fundamentally change his identity. However, this also means that no matter what he does his “consciousness” can never be exactly that of a human’s, regardless of how organic he is in every other aspect. While I don’t know if this sort of segregation is “right” I also don’t see how it could really change as long as we hold the same values about what defines a human.
[…] the whimsical tone and the consistent victory of wit and cunning above force. I might […] emmy11The Robot as Human December 12, 2010On Thursday, someone brought up a very interesting point on why we keep trying to […]
I’m taking a class called ‘Norms, Rights and Social Justice’ and in fact we started the semester with animal rights, using that as a point to think about how we decide who has or does not have rights. In the animal rights discourse there is a strong focus on valuing animals because they’re living and can feel pain, regardless of their intelligence. I thought the whole animal worship thing in ‘Do Androids Dream’ was really interesting, because it addresses this question, of who or what is entitled to rights by distinguishing between the inherent value of living and intelligence, and giving preference to the former.