G u e s t E d i t o r s ’ I n t r o d u c t i o n

Machine Ethics
Michael Anderson, University of Hartford

Susan Leigh Anderson, University of Connecticut

P ast research concerning the relationship between technology and ethics has

focused largely on the responsible and irresponsible uses humans make of tech-

nology; a few people have also been

interested in how human beings ought

to treat machines. In all cases, only the

humans have engaged in ethical rea-

soning. We believe the time has come

for adding an ethical dimension to at

least some machines. Adding this

dimension acknowledges the ethical

ramifications of recent and potential

developments in machine autonomy.

In contrast to computer hacking, software

property issues, privacy, and other topics nor-
mally ascribed to computer ethics, machine
ethics is concerned with how machines behave
toward human users and other machines. A
goal of machine ethics is to create a machine
that’s guided by an acceptable ethical princi-
ple or set of principles in the decisions it makes
about possible courses of action it could take.
The behavior of more fully autonomous
machines, guided by such an ethical dimension,
is likely to be more acceptable in real-world
environments than that of machines without
such a dimension.

10 1541-1672/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE IEEE INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS

Published by the IEEE Computer Society
AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium
This special issue stems from the AAAI
2005 Fall Symposium on Machine Ethics.
The symposium brought together partici-
pants from computer science and philoso-
phy to clarify the nature of this newly
emerging field and discuss potential
approaches toward realizing the goal of cre-
ating an ethical machine.
The projections that researchers have
made for autonomous technology are lim-
itless. South Korea has recently mustered
more than 30 companies and 1,000 scien-
tists toward the goal of putting “a robot in
every home by 2010.” DARPA’s Grand
Challenge to have an autonomous vehicle
drive itself across 132 miles of desert ter-
rain has been met, and a new Grand Chal-
lenge is in the works to have vehicles
maneuvering in an urban setting. The US
Army’s Future Combat Systems program is
developing armed robotic vehicles that will
support ground troops with “direct fire” and
antitank weapons.
From family cars that drive themselves
and machines that discharge our daily chores
with little or no assistance from us, to fully
autonomous robotic entities that will begin
to challenge our notions of the very nature of
intelligence, the behavior of autonomous
systems will have ethical ramifications. We
contend that machine ethics research is
key to alleviating concerns with such sys-
tems. It could be argued that the notion of
autonomous machines without such a dimen-
sion is at the root of all fears concerning
machine intelligence. Furthermore, investi-
gation of machine ethics, by making ethics
more precise than it’s ever been before, could
lead to the discovery of problems with cur-
rent ethical theories, advancing our thinking
about ethics in general.
The articles
In this special issue, two articles explore
the nature and significance of machine
ethics. Colin Allen, Wendell Wallach, and
Iva Smit provide motivation for the disci-
pline in “Why Machine Ethics?” James
Moor considers different possible meanings
of adding an ethical dimension to machines,
as well as problems that might arise in try-
ing to create such a machine, in “The
Nature, Importance, and Difficulty of
Machine Ethics.”
Often cited as representing an ideal set
of ethical principles for machines to follow
are Isaac Asimov’s “laws of robotics.” In his
JULY/AUGUST 2006
fiction, however, Asimov himself wrote ciples into an autonomous system’s deci-
often and convincingly about the ambigui- sion procedure. Tom Powers’ “Prospects for
ties, inconsistencies, and complexities with a Kantian Machine,” on the other hand,
these principles. Finally, in “The Bicen- assesses the feasibility of using deontic and
tennial Man,” Asimov clearly rejected these default logics to implement Immanuel
laws on ethical grounds as an ideal basis for Kant’s categorical imperative.
machine ethics. Christopher Grau discusses utilitarian-
Turning from speculative fiction to more ism, another well-known ethical theory that
plausible bases for machine ethics, three arti- might serve as a basis for implementation.
cles here explore a range of machine learning “There Is No ‘I’ in ‘Robot’: Robots and
techniques to codify ethical reasoning from Utilitarianism” investigates utilitarianism’s
examples. In “Particularism and the Classi- viability as a foundation for machine ethics
fication and Reclassification of Moral from both human-machine and machine-
Cases,” Marcello Guarini advocates a neural machine perspectives.
network approach that classifies particular
ethical judgments as acceptable or unac-
ceptable. Bruce McLaren’s “Computational
Models of Ethical Reasoning: Challenges,
Initial Steps, and Future Directions” details
a case-based-reasoning approach to devel-
oping systems that can provide guidance in
N ot everyone might be comfortable
with the notion of machines making
ethical decisions, preferring machines to
ethical dilemmas. In “An Approach to Com- defer to human judgment. However, it’s
puting Ethics,” an invited article, we team important to observe that such a position
with Chris Armen to develop a decision pro- entails curbing present and future machine
cedure for an ethical theory that has multiple autonomy to an extent that could severely
prima facie duties. Using inductive-logic pro- hamper the investigation of machine intel-
gramming, the system learns relationships ligence itself. That said, there’s every rea-
among these duties that reflect the intuitions son to believe that we can develop ethically
of ethics experts. sensitive machines. Ethics experts continue
Deontic logic—a formalization of the to make progress toward consensus con-
notions of obligation, permission, and cerning the right way to behave in ethical
related concepts—is a prime candidate as a dilemmas. The task for those working in
basis for machine ethics. In “Toward a Gen- machine ethics is to codify these insights,
eral Logicist Methodology for Engineering perhaps even before the ethics experts do
Ethically Correct Robots,” Selmer Bringsjord, so themselves. We hope this special issue
Konstantine Arkoudas, and Paul Bello will encourage you to join us in this chal-
describe how deontic logic might be used lenge. Visit www.machineethics.org for
to incorporate any given set of ethical prin- more information.
T h e A u t h o r s
Michael Anderson is an associate professor of computer science at the Uni-
versity of Hartford. His research interests include machine ethics and dia-
grammatic reasoning. He received his PhD from the University of Connecticut
in computer science. He’s a member of the Yale Bioethics and Technology
Working Research Group, the AAAI, and Sigma Xi. Contact him at the Dept.
of Computer Science, Univ. of Hartford, 200 Bloomfield Ave., West Hart-
ford, CT 06117; anderson@hartford.edu.
Susan Leigh Anderson is a professor of philosophy at the University of
Connecticut, Stamford campus. Her research interests focus on applied ethics.
She received her PhD in philosophy from the University of California at Los
Angeles. She’s a member of the Yale Bioethics and Technology Working
Research Group and the American Philosophical Association. Contact her at
the Dept. of Philosophy, Univ. of Connecticut, 1 University Pl., Stamford,
CT 06901; susan.anderson@uconn.edu.
www.computer.org/intelligent 11