---
title: "Machine ethics"
chunk: 3/7
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_ethics"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:23:37.276938+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

In 2009, academics and technical experts attended a conference to discuss the potential impact of robots and computers and the impact of the possibility that they could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might acquire autonomy, and to what degree they could use it to pose a threat or hazard. They noted that some machines have acquired various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to find power sources on their own and to independently choose targets to attack with weapons. They also noted that some computer viruses can evade elimination and have achieved "cockroach intelligence". They noted that self-awareness as depicted in science fiction is probably unlikely, but that there are other potential hazards and pitfalls.
Some experts and academics have questioned the use of robots in military combat, especially robots with a degree of autonomy. The U.S. Navy funded a report that indicates that as military robots become more complex, we should pay greater attention to the implications of their ability to make autonomous decisions. The president of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence has commissioned a study of this issue.

=== Integration of artificial general intelligences with society ===
Preliminary work has been conducted on methods of integrating artificial general intelligences (full ethical agents as defined above) with existing legal and social frameworks. Approaches have focused on their legal position and rights.

=== Machine learning bias ===

Big data and machine learning algorithms have become popular in numerous industries, including online advertising, credit ratings, and criminal sentencing, with the promise of providing more objective, data-driven results, but have been identified as a potential way to perpetuate social inequalities and discrimination. A 2015 study found that women were less likely than men to be shown high-income job ads by Google's AdSense. Another study found that Amazon's same-day delivery service was intentionally made unavailable in black neighborhoods. Both Google and Amazon were unable to isolate these outcomes to a single issue, and said the outcomes were the result of the black box algorithms they use.
The U.S. judicial system has begun using quantitative risk assessment software when making decisions related to releasing people on bail and sentencing in an effort to be fairer and reduce the imprisonment rate. These tools analyze a defendant's criminal history, among other attributes. In a study of 7,000 people arrested in Broward County, Florida, only 20% of people predicted to commit a crime using the county's risk assessment scoring system proceeded to commit a crime. A 2016 ProPublica report analyzed recidivism risk scores calculated by one of the most commonly used tools, the Northpointe COMPAS system, and looked at outcomes over two years. The report found that only 61% of those deemed high-risk committed additional crimes during that period. The report also flagged that African-American defendants were far more likely to be given high-risk scores than their white counterparts. It has been argued that such pretrial risk assessments violate Equal Protection rights on the basis of race, due to factors including possible discriminatory intent by the algorithm itself, under a theory of partial legal capacity for artificial intelligences.
In 2016, the Obama administration's Big Data Working Group—an overseer of various big-data regulatory frameworks—released reports warning of "the potential of encoding discrimination in automated decisions" and calling for "equal opportunity by design" for applications such as credit scoring. The reports encourage discourse among policy-makers, citizens, and academics alike, but recognize that no solution yet exists for the encoding of bias and discrimination into algorithmic systems.

=== Robot ethics ===
The term robot ethics (sometimes roboethics) refers to the morality of how humans design, construct, use, and treat robots. Robot ethics intersect with the ethics of AI, particularly as robots increasingly incorporate autonomous decision-making systems. Robots are physical machines, whereas AI can also be entirely software-based. Not all robots function through AI systems, and not all AI systems are embodied as robots. Robot ethics considers how machines may be used to harm or benefit humans, their impact on individual autonomy, and their effects on social justice. Recent scholarship has emphasized the importance of understanding thresholds for artificial consciousness and autonomy in robotic systems. Chella (2023) argues that as robots approach benchmarks such as self-awareness, emotional recognition, and independent learning, ethical frameworks must evolve to address their potential moral status and the designers' responsibility to prevent exploitation or suffering.
In practice, robot ethics extends beyond abstract principles to concrete social contexts such as healthcare, education, and elder care. Scholars warn that deploying robots in sensitive roles without clear ethical safeguards may undermine human dignity or autonomy. Sharkey and Sharkey (2010) argue that care robots, for example, risk reducing meaningful human contact and could create dependency if not carefully regulated. These concerns reinforce calls for extended precaution, transparency in decision-making systems, and well-designed oversight mechanisms that ensure robots enhance rather than diminish social justice and individual autonomy. John Danaher has argued that ethical debates about artificial intelligence should also consider a shift in moral standing on the human side of human–machine interaction. He introduces the notion of a "crisis of moral patiency", in which increasing automation reduces opportunities for humans to exercise moral agency, leaving them as passive recipients of machine-generated decisions rather than active moral agents.

=== Robot rights or AI rights ===