Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all?

  • Published:
Ethics and Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As we near a time when robots may serve a vital function by becoming caregivers, it is important to examine the ethical implications of this development. By applying the capabilities approach as a guide to both the design and use of robot caregivers, we hope that this will maximize opportunities to preserve or expand freedom for care recipients. We think the use of the capabilities approach will be especially valuable for improving the ability of impaired persons to interface more effectively with their physical and social environments.

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

Notes

  1. Lin et al. (2008).

  2. Onishi (2009).

  3. Which of course is a significant ethical issue but only portions of the issue will be discussed in this paper. For instance, safety concerns will not be addressed.

  4. Wallach and Allen (2009).

  5. Oosterlaken (2009).

  6. Wallach and Allen (2009, p. 39).

  7. Coeckelbergh (2009).

  8. Nussbaum (2006).

  9. Nussbaum (2006, p. 193).

  10. Sen (1999, p. 56).

  11. Nussbaum (2006, p. 73).

  12. Nussbaum (2006, p. 138).

  13. Sen (1999, p. 62).

  14. Nussbaum (2000).

  15. Nussbaum (2000, pp. 139–40); in an earlier piece, Nussbaum speaks more generally about women in developing countries who report their health and nutritional status as good even though these women are shown to be suffering physical symptoms of malnourishment (Nussbaum and Onora O’Neill 1993, p. 325).

  16. Nussbaum (2000, p. 142).

  17. Johnstone (2007, pp. 84–85).

  18. Johnstone (2007, pp. 84-85).

  19. Johnstone (2007, p. 85).

  20. Baber (2009).

  21. Oosterlaken.

  22. Nussbaum (2006, p. 139).

  23. Sen (1999, p. 75).

  24. Robeyns (2006, p. 351).

  25. Nussbaum, for example, suggests that in certain cases, e.g., compulsory education for children, functioning should be the goal (Nussbaum 2006, p. 172, 2000, pp. 89–91). In other cases, e.g., voting, she contends that people should not be forced to vote if they do not want to do so. What is crucial, according to Nussbaum, is that they should have a genuine opportunity to vote.

  26. Robeyns, pp. 354–55.

  27. Nussbaum (2006, p. 184).

  28. Nussbaum (2000, p. 5).

  29. Sen (1993).

  30. Nussbaum (2000, pp. 70–77).

  31. Although there are similarities and differences between the two authors’ views, the issue will not be explored here.

  32. Johnstone (2007, p. 78).

  33. Robeyns (2006); Nussbaum (2000); Sen (1999); Terzi (2005).

  34. Bynum (2006); Supra, No. 6, p. 327.

  35. Nussbaum (2006 p. 2).

  36. Some of these efforts are described in the 2006 ETHICBOTS report; see Datteri et al. (2006 pp. 78–81).

  37. Castelfranchi (2000).

  38. Coeckelbergh (2010).

  39. Coeckelbergh (2010, p. 3).

  40. Coeckelbergh (2010, p. 5).

  41. Decker (2008).

  42. Sparrow and Sparrow (2006, pp. 145–149).

  43. Faucounau et al. (2009 pp. 36–38).

  44. Grandma Interacts During GeckoSystems' Elder Care Robot Trials. CNNMoney.com. December 2, 2009. http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0564659.htm.

  45. Nussbaum (2006, p. 101).

  46. Nussbaum (2006, p. 101).

  47. Bynum, p. 160.

  48. Oosterlaken, p. 98.

  49. Johnstone, p. 74.

  50. Faucounau et al. p. 35.

  51. Kozima and Nakagawa (2006).

  52. Robins et al. (2005).

  53. Scassellati. (2007).

  54. Graf et al. (2002).

  55. Nussbaum (2000, p. 79).

  56. Banks et al. (2008).

  57. Banks et al (2008, p. 176).

  58. Turkle (2006).

  59. Shaw-Garlock (2009, pp. 253–254).

  60. Hansson (2007), p. 264; see also Reidy and Crozier( 1991).

  61. Hansson (2007, p. 265).

  62. Hansson (2007, pp. 264–265).

  63. ETHICBOTS (D5) (2008).

  64. Tucker (2009).

  65. Kozima and Nakagawa (2007).

  66. Sung et al. (2007).

  67. Garreau (2007).

  68. Steckenfinger and Ghazanfar (2009).

  69. Tapus et al. (2008).

  70. Wallach and Allen (2009, p. 41).

  71. Faucounau et al. p. 34.

  72. Robins et al. p. 117.

  73. An objection might be raised here that the same problem would be repeated with robots. In other words, robots could become a mistreated class of beings. Given the difficulty robotics experts are having with their attempts to develop a robot that has the learning capacities of the average infant, robots probably will not become morally significant enough for the foreseeable future to warrant people coming to their defense or accusing people of failing to provide them with adequate opportunities (capabilities). However, we remain agnostic on the issue.

  74. Hardwig (1997).

  75. Nussbaum (2006, p. 102).

  76. Cowan (1983).

  77. Dyson (1998).

  78. Dyson, pp. 132–134.

  79. Tucker, p. 62.

  80. Bringsjord (2008).

  81. North et al. (2004).

  82. Sparrow and Sparrow, p. 149.

  83. It should be noted that if an individual suffers from severe dementia, she could not only be “deceived” by being taken care of by a robot, but presumably she could also mistake relatives for health care staff for example.

  84. The study did however have a relatively small sample size (N = 177); see Ezer et al. (2009).

  85. Cooper et al. (2009).

  86. Coeckelbergh (2010, p. 183).

  87. Thank you to the anonymous reviewer who raised this objection.

  88. Sparrow and Sparrow, p. 152.

  89. Sparrow and Sparrow, p. 153.

  90. Sparrow and Sparrow, p. 150.

  91. Pear (2008).

  92. Nussbaum (2000).

  93. Decker (2000, pp. 321–322).

  94. Wallach and Allen, p. 45.

  95. Nussbaum (2006, p. 128).

  96. Nussbaum (2006, p. 157).

References

  • Alkire S. (2005). Capability and functionings: Definition and justification. http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/HDCA_Briefing_Concepts.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2010.

  • Baber H. E. (2009) Worlds, capabilities and well-being. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. Available online.

  • Banks, M. R., Willoughby, L. M., & Banks, W. A. (2008). Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: Use of robotic versus living dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 9(3), 173–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bringsjord, S. (2008). Ethical robots: the future can heed us. AI & Society, 22, 539–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bynum, T. W. (2006). Flourishing ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 8, 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C. (2000). Artificial liars: Why computers will (necessarily) deceive us and each other. Ethics and Information Technology, 2, 113–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh, M. (2009). Personal robots, appearance, and human good: A methodological reflection on roboethics. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 217–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Health care, capabilities, and ai assistive technologies. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 13(2), 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C., Selwood, A., Blanchard, M., Walker, Z., Blizard, R., & Livingston, G. (2009). Abuse of people with dementia by family carers: Representative cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 338, 583–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R. S. (1983). More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave. London: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datteri E., Laschi C., Salvini P., Tamburrini G., Veruggio G., & Warwick K. (2006). ETHICBOTS: Emerging Technoethics of Human Interaction with Communication, Bionic and Robotic Systems, April 2006, http://ethicbots.na.infn.it/restricted/doc/EthicBotsD1.zip. Accessed December 4, 2009.

  • Decker, M. (2008). Caregiving robots and ethical reflection: The perspective of interdisciplinary technology assessment. AI & Society, 22, 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson F. (1998). Technology and social justice. In: M. E. Winston & R. D. Edelbach (Eds.), Society, Ethics, and Technology, pp. 130–140. Thomson Wadsworth, 2006.

  • ETHICBOTS (D5). (2008). Techno-ethical case-studies in robotics, bionics, and related ai agent technologies, R. Capurro, G. Tamburrini, & J. Weber (Eds.), http://ethicbots.na.infn.it/documents.php (accessed January 2, 2010).

  • Ezer N., Fisk A. D., Rogers W. A. (2009). More than a servant: Self-reported willingness of younger and older adults to having a robot perform interactive and critical tasks in the home. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting—2009. http://www.hfes.org/web/Newsroom/HFES09-Ezer-RobotsInHome.pdf Accessed December 2, 2009.

  • Faucounau, V., Wu, Y. H., Boulay, M., Maestrutti, M., & Rigaud, A. S. (2009). Caregivers’ requirements for in-home robotic agent for supporting community-living elderly subjects with cognitive impairment. Technology and Health Care, 17(1), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garreau J. (2007). Bots on the ground. The Washington Post. May 6, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501009_pf.html. Accessed July 13, 2009.

  • Graf B., Hans M., Kubacki J. & Schraft R. (2002). Robotic home assistant care-o-bot II. Proceedings of the Second Joint Meeting of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society and the Biomedical Engineering Society. http://www.care-o-bot.de/Papers/2002_RoboticHomeAssistant_Care-O-bot_II_IEEE_Texas.pdf. Accessed July 13, 2009.

  • Hansson, S. O. (2007). The ethics of enabling technology. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16, 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig, J. (1997). Is there a duty to die? Hastings Center Report, 27(2), 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, J. (2007). Technology as empowerment: A capability approach to computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozima H. & Nakagawa C. (2006). Social robots for children: Practice in communication-care. 9th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, 768–773.

  • Kozima H. & Nakagawa C. (2007). A robot in a playroom with preschool children: longitudinal field practice. 16th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication, 1058–1059.

  • Lin P., Bekey G., & Abney K. (2008). Autonomous military robotics: Risk, ethics, and design. Ethics & Emerging Technologies Group at California State Polytechnic University.

  • North, A. C., Tarrant, M., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2004). The effects of music on helping behavior. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 266–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C., & O’Neill, O. (1993). Justice, gender, and international boundaries. In C. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 324–335). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Onishi N. (2006). In a wired South Korea, robots will feel right at home. The New York Times, April 2, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/world/asia/02robot.html. Accessed July 2, 2009.

  • Oosterlaken, I. (2009). Design for development: A capability approach. Design Issues, 25(4), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pear R. (2008) Violations reported at 94% of nursing homes. The New York Times. September 29, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/us/30nursing.html. Accessed July 7, 2009.

  • Reidy, K., & Crozier, K. S. (1991). Refusing treatment during rehabilitation—A model for conflict resolution, In rehabilitation medicine-adding life to years [special issue]. The Western Journal of Medicine, 154, 622–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. The Journal of Political Philosphy, 14(3), 351–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., & Billard, A. (2005). Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: Can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Universal Access in the Information Society, 4, 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scassellati, B. (2007). How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. In S. Thrun, R. Brooks, & H. Durrant-Whyte (Eds.), Robotics research (pp. 552–563). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 31–53). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw-Garlock, G. (2009). Looking forward to sociable robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines, 16, 141–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steckenfinger, S. A., & Ghazanfar, A. A. (2009). Monkey visual behavior falls into the uncanny valley. PNAS, 106(43), 18362–18366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, J. Y., Guo, L., Grinter, R. E., & Christensen, H. I. (2007). “My Roomba is Rambo”: Intimate home appliances. In J. Krumm, G. D. Abowd, A. Seneviratne, & T. Strang (Eds.), UbiComp 2007: Ubiquitous computing (pp. 145–162). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tapus A., Tapus C., & Mataric′ M. J. (2008). User-robot personality matching and assistive robot behavior adaptation for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. Intelligent Service Robotics Journal, Special issue on multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics, A. Tapus (Ed.), 169–183.

  • Terzi, L. (2005). A capability perspective on impairment, disability, and special needs. Theory and Research in Education, 3(2), 197–223.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker A. (2009). Robot babies. Smithsonian Magazine. 56–65, July 2009. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Birth-of-a-Robot.html. Accessed July 13, 2009.

  • Turkle S. (2006). A nascent robotics culture: New complicities for companionship. AAAI Technical Report Series.

  • Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2009). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

The authors are not aware.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Tech, School of Public Policy, 685 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0345, USA

    Jason Borenstein

  2. Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Old Dominion University, BAL 9018, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Yvette Pearson

Authors
  1. Jason Borenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yvette Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Borenstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Borenstein, J., Pearson, Y. Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all?. Ethics Inf Technol 12, 277–288 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9236-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9236-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation