A Philosopher's Blog

Can Machines Be Enslaved?

Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Technology by Michael LaBossiere on July 10, 2017

The term “robot” and the idea of a robot rebellion were introduced by Karel Capek in Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti. “Robot” was derived from the Czech term for “forced labor” which was itself based on a term for slavery. As such, robots and slavery are thus forever linked in science-fiction. This leads to an interesting philosophical question: can a machine be a slave? Sorting this matter out requires an adequate definition of slavery followed by determining whether the definition can fit a machine.

In the simplest terms, slavery is the ownership of a person by another person. While slavery is often seen in absolute terms (one is either enslaved or not), it does seem reasonable to consider that there are degrees of slavery. That is, that the extent of ownership claimed by one person over another can vary. For example, a slave owner might grant their slaves some free time or allow them autonomy in certain areas. This is analogous to being ruled under a political authority—there are degrees of being ruled and degrees of freedom under that rule.

Slavery is also often characterized in terms of compelling a person to engage in uncompensated labor. While this account does have some appeal, it is clearly problematic. After all, it could be claimed that slaves are often compensated for their labors by being provided with food, shelter and clothing. Slaves are sometimes even paid wages and there are cases in which slaves have purchased their own freedom using these wages. The Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire were slaves, yet were paid a wage and enjoyed a socioeconomic status above many of the free subjects of the empire.  As such, compelled unpaid labor is not the defining quality of slavery. However, it is intuitively plausible to regard compelled unpaid labor as a form of slavery in that the compeller purports to own the laborer’s time without consent or compensation.

Slaves are typically cast as powerless and abused, but this is not always the case. For example, the Mamluks were treated as property that could be purchased, yet they enjoyed considerable status and power. The Janissaries, as noted above, also enjoyed considerable influence and power. As is obvious, there are free people who are powerless and routinely abused. Thus, being powerless and abused are neither necessary nor sufficient for slavery. As such, the defining characteristic of slavery is the claiming of ownership—that the slave is property.

Obviously enough, not all forms of ownership are slavery. My running shoes are not enslaved by my owning them, nor is my smartphone. This is because shoes and smartphones lack the status required to be considered enslaved. The matter becomes somewhat more controversial when it comes to animals.

Most people accept that humans have the right to own animals. For example, a human who has a dog or cat is referred to as the pet’s owner. There are people, myself included, that take issue with the ownership of animals. While some philosophers, such as Kant and Descartes, regard animals as objects other philosophers consider them to have moral status. For example, some utilitarians accept that the capacity of animals to feel pleasure and pain grants them moral status. This is typically taken as a status that requires that their suffering be considered rather than one that is taken to morally forbid ownership of animals. That is, it is typically seen as morally acceptable to own animals if they are treated in a way that the happiness generated exceeds the suffering generated. There are even some who consider any ownership of animals to be wrong but their use of the term “slavery” for the ownership of animals seems more metaphorical than a considered philosophical position.

While I think that treating animals as property is morally wrong, I would not characterize the ownership of most animals as slavery. This is because most animals lack the status required to be enslaved. To use an analogy, denying animals religious freedom, the freedom of expression, the right to vote and so on does not oppress animals because they are not the sort of beings that can exercise these rights. This is not to say that animals cannot be wronged, just that their capabilities limit the wrongs that can be done to them. So, while an animal can be wronged by being cruelly confined, it cannot be wronged by denying it freedom of religion.

People, because of their capabilities, can be enslaved. This is because the claim of ownership over them is a denial of their rightful status. The problem is, obviously enough, working out exactly what it is to be a person—something that philosophers have struggled with since the origin of the idea of persons. Fortunately, I do not need to provide such a definition when considering whether machines can be enslaved or not—I can make use of analogy to make my case.

While I believe that other humans are (usually) people, thanks to the problem of other minds I do not know that they are really people. That is, since I have no epistemic access to their alleged thoughts and feelings, I do not know if they have the qualities needed to be people or if they are just mindless automatons that exhibit the illusion of the personhood that I possess. Because of this, I have to use an argument by analogy: these other beings act like I do, I am a person, so they are also people. To be consistent, I need to extend the same reasoning to beings that are not humans, which would include machines. After all, without cutting open the apparent humans I meet, I have no idea whether they are organic beings or machines. As such, the mere appearance of being organic or mechanical is not relevant—I have to go by how the entity functions. For all I know, you are a machine. For all you know, I am a machine. Yet it seems reasonable to regard both of us as people.

While machines can engage in some person-like behavior now, they cannot yet pass this analogy test. That is, they cannot consistently exhibit the capacities exhibited by a known person. However, this does not mean that machines cannot pass this test. That is, behave in ways that would be sufficient to be accepted as a person if it appeared to be an organic human.

A machine that could pass this test would merit being regarded as a person in the same way that humans passing this test merit this status. As such, if a human person can be enslaved, then a robot person could also be enslaved.

It is, of course, tempting to ask if a robot with such behavior would really be a person. The same question can be asked about humans.


My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Tagged with: , , ,

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ajmacdonaldjr said, on July 10, 2017 at 9:37 am

    When did you become a person?

  2. DH said, on July 11, 2017 at 7:45 am

    I was thinking about this question when someone texted me about a debate they were having … “Is a hot dog a sandwich?”

    I think it’s all about semantics, and what our understanding of words is – not the nature of slavery or hot dogs.

    • CoffeeTime said, on July 11, 2017 at 10:42 pm

      DH, I agree. If we regard “animals” as a subset of “machines”, and “humans” as a subset of “animals”, and we are given that humans can be enslaved, then some machines are already enslaved, and the question is answered. I believe those classifications are defensible.

      If we limit “machines” to devices designed and constructed by humans, and define slavery as the legal ownership of persons, then the question also goes away, since no machine has been declared a person. An orangutan, Sandra, has been legally declared a non-human person, though, and companies are defined as persons, so the definition of “person” is at issue. Courts and legislatures, and government bodies using powers delegated by legislatures, can apparently define anything as anything for legal purposes, so following the legal route could end in some strange places. For example, strictly defining slavery as “the ownership of a person by another person”, we can see that slavery is still a cornerstone of our society, since companies, which are (juridical) persons, are routinely owned both by natural persons and by other juridical persons.

      We now distil the original question to ask: could a device designed and constructed by humans be what we recognise as a person, in a sense that is not a legal triviality?

      I hate to do this, but now we must consider the definition of “designed”. The program/computer AlphaGo is one of the most advanced “AIs”. It clearly does not qualify as a person, but it is arguable that it was not designed, either. The essence of AlphaGo is its ability to play Go, and unlike Deep Blue’s ability to play Chess, this was not designed. Rather, its makers coded (“explained”) the rules, showed it a number of top-level games, and AlphaGo then played millions of games against itself, building a knowledge and experience of the effects of positions. It encoded this knowledge and experience in a network that not only could not have been designed by a human, but could never be understood by a human.

      I believe that if ever a person-level sentience exists in a constructed machine, that intelligence will not have been designed by a human; it will have evolved. Human brains are too limited to design a conscious intelligence directly. Of course, a synthetic partially human-like genome could also be constructed. Either of these might qualify, by these definitions, as an enslaved machine, at least until a court rules otherwise.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 12, 2017 at 4:52 pm

        The question of whether humans are capable enough to design and build a person is an interesting one. It might be something beyond out ability and it might even be an impossibility. For example, some philosophers (such as Descartes) argue that a person is an incorporeal mind. It seems rather unlikely that we could build such minds. So, if Descartes is right, we probably could never build a machine that could be enslaved.

        But, if we are just biological machines as philosophers like Hobbes argued, then such engineering could be within our skill set. Or we might have to upgrade ourselves to be able to build people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: