Accepting Moral Responsibility for the Actions of Autonomous Weapons Systems—a Moral Gambit

Journal article

Peter Königs recently argued that, while autonomous robots generate responsibility gaps, such gaps need not be considered problematic. I argue that Königs’ compromise dissolves under analysis since, on a proper understanding of what “responsibility” is and what “gap” (metaphorically) means, their joint endorsement must repel an attitude of indifference. So, just as “calamities that happen but don’t bother anyone” makes no sense, the idea of “responsibility gaps that exist but leave citizens and ethicists unmoved” makes no sense

Authors: Taddeo, M; Blanchard, A

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Springer
• Journal: Philosophy & Technology
• Volume: 35
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 78
• Article number: 78
• Publication date: 2022-08-05
• DOI: 10.1007/s13347-022-00571-x
• EISSN: 2210-5441
• ISSN: 2210-5433
• Language: English
• Keywords: Philosophy of technology; Attribution; Moral character; Unintended consequences; Law; Moral reasoning; Law and economics; Gambit; Social psychology; Sociology; Philosophy of science; Psychology; Computer science; Political science; Moral responsibility; Philosophy; Epistemology; Environmental ethics; Moral disengagement