Robohub.org
 

Ethical robots: Some technical and ethical challenges


by
19 November 2013



share this:

I’ve been talking about robot ethics for several years now, but that’s mostly been about how we roboticists must be responsible and mindful of the societal impact of our creations. Two years ago I wrote – in my Very Short Introduction to Robotics – that robots cannot be ethical. Since then I’ve completely changed my mind*. I now think there is a way of making a robot that is at least minimally ethical. It’s a huge technical challenge which, in turn, raises new ethical questions. For instance: if we can build ethical robots, should we? Must we..? Would we have an ethical duty to do so? After all, the alternative would be to build amoral robots. Or, would building ethical robots create a new set of ethical problems? An ethical Pandora’s box.

Here are the slides of my keynote at last week’s excellent EUCog meeting: Social and Ethical Aspects of Cognitive Systems. And the talk itself is here, on YouTube.

The talk was in three parts.

Part 1: here I outline why and how roboticists must be ethical. This is essentially a recap of previous talks. I start with the societal context: the frustrating reality that even when we meet to discuss robot ethics this can be misinterpreted as scientists fear a revolt of killer robots. This kind of media reaction is just one part of three linked expectation gaps, in what I characterise as a crisis of expectations. I then outline a few ethical problems in robotics – just as examples. Here I argue it’s important to link safe and ethical behaviour – something that I return to later. Then I recap the five draft principles of robotics.

Part 2: here I ask the question: what if we could make ethical robots? I outline new thinking which brings together the idea of robots with internal models, with Dennett’s Tower of Generate and Test, as a way of making robots that can predict the consequences of their own actions. I then outline a generic control architecture for robot safety, even in unpredictable environments. The important thing about this approach is that the robot can generate next possible actions, test them in its internal model, and evaluate the safety consequences of each possible action. The unsafe actions are then inhibited – and the robot controller determines which of the remaining safe actions is chosen, using its usual action-selection mechanism. Then I argue that it is surprisingly easy to extend this architecture for ethical behaviour, to allow the robot to predict the robot actions that would minimise harm for a human in its environment. This appears to represent an implementation of Asimov’s 1st and 3rd laws. I outline the significant technical challenges that would need to be overcome to make this work.

But, assuming such a robot could be built, how ethical would it be? I suggest that with a subset of Asimovian ethics it probably wouldn’t satisfy an ethicist or moral philosopher. But, nevertheless – I argue there’s a good chance that such a minimally ethical robot could help to increase trust, in the robot, from its users.

Part 3: in the final part of the talk I conclude with some ethical questions. The first is: if we could build an ethical robot, are we ethically compelled to do so? Some argue that we have an ethical duty to try and build moral machines. I agree. But the counter argument, my second ethical question, is are there ethical hazards? Are we opening a kind of ethical Pandora’s box, by building robots that might have an implicit claim to rights, or responsibilities. I don’t mean that such a robot would ask for rights, but instead that, because it is has some moral agency, then we might think it should be accorded rights. I conclude that we should try and build ethical robots. The benefits I think far outweigh any ethical hazards, which in any event can, I think, be minimised.


*It was not so much an epiphany, as a slow conversion from sceptic to believer. I have long term collaborator Michael Fisher to thank for doggedly arguing with me that it was worth thinking deeply about how to build ethical robots.



tags: , , , , ,


Alan Winfield is Professor in robotics at UWE Bristol. He communicates about science on his personal blog.
Alan Winfield is Professor in robotics at UWE Bristol. He communicates about science on his personal blog.

            AUAI is supported by:



Subscribe to Robohub newsletter on substack



Related posts :

Surviving the paper deluge: Notes from an ICRA panel on publishing, LLMs, and the future of peer review

Experts discuss peer-review challenges and possibilities for reshaping the process.

When expressive humanoid robots are awkward, people become wary – new brain study

  31 Aug 2026
People become more suspicious of a humanoid robot that makes errors, especially when the robot is an expressive conversation partner.

First 11 vs 11 humanoid soccer game played at RoboCup 2026

  28 Aug 2026
Watch highlights from this historic match.

How green is your robot? And other awkward questions

Robots clean rivers and sort waste, monitor ecosystems, and inspect renewable-energy infrastructure. But even the greenest robot has an environmental footprint.

These tiny drones are powered by sound

  24 Aug 2026
EPFL engineers have designed acoustic cavities that convert sound waves into thrust, propelling small robots and ultralight aerial vehicles without on-board actuators or electronics.

#AAMAS2026 blue sky award winner: Foundation world models for agents in changing environments

and   21 Aug 2026
Hear from the AAMAS 2026 Best Blue Sky Paper Award winner.

Robotics roadmaps from around the world spotlight of the month: Japan

Robots have been a prolific theme in Japanese pop culture and media since the 1950s

Intermittent swimming promotes the energy efficiency of fish-like robot movements

How zebrafish-inspired robots save energy by swimming in bursts.



AUAI is supported by:







Subscribe to Robohub newsletter on substack




 















©2026.05 - Association for the Understanding of Artificial Intelligence