Abstract
Robots designed to mimic human sexual behaviour and interaction are known as “sex robots.” In the contemporary world, they have become more sophisticated and practical as well as more accessible and reasonably priced. However, they also bring up several moral issues and queries, such as whether or not they are morally righteous and in what situations. In this paper, I will argue that sex robots are morally problematic only when they allow users to live problematic intentions or desires. I shall provide three primary arguments in favour of my position: first, sex robots are morally neutral machines that may be utilised for a variety of purposes and outcomes, contingent on the intentions or desires of their users; second, sex robots become morally problematic when they enable users to live problematic intentions or desires, especially those that infringe upon one’s moral rights, dignity, or well-being, or when they conflict with moral values, norms, or principles of a community or society; and third, sex robots are not morally problematic when they permit users to live non-problematic intentions or desires, such as those that are not harmful to or infringe any individual or entity or even oneself, or which are compatible with the moral values, norms, or principles of a community or society. I will also consider and respond to possible objections and counterarguments from different perspectives. I will conclude by discussing the implications and limitations of my argument.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For details on the interview, please see Robot Sex: Two Experts on If It’s Ethical | Time.
References
Agunbiade, A., 2022. Sex Robots: Ethical Issues Arising and their Potential Impact on Human Intimacy. [online] Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4483857.
Aristotle , 2004. The Nicomachean ethics. Translated by J.A.K. Thomson. London: Penguin.
Berg, M. and Chang, E., 2023. Introduction: What is moral motivation, and why does it matter? American Psychological Association eBooks, pp.3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000342-001.
CASR, 2015. CAMPAIGN AGAINST SEX ROBOTS. [online] Campaign Against Sex Robot Porn. Available at: https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org [Accessed 10 Aug. 2023].
Cohut, M., 2018. Sex robots may do more harm than good. [online] www.medicalnewstoday.com. Available at: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322030.
Danaher, J., 2014. Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should They be Criminalized? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 11(1), pp.71–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x.
Danaher, J, 2017. The Symbolic-Consequences Argument in the Sex Robot Debate. In John Danaher and Neil McArthur, eds, Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications. Pg 103-131. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Danaher, J., 2019. Regulating Child Sex Robots: Restriction or Experimentation? Medical Law Review, 27(4), pp.553–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwz002.
Daniel, T., Lamb, J. and Campbell, C., 2023. Avoidance and empowerment: How do sex workers navigate stigma? Sexualities. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607231201736.
Di Nucci, E., 2017. “Sex Robots and the Rights of the Disabled,” in J. Danaher and N. McArthur (eds.) Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications, 73–88. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dockterman, E., 2017. It’s Valentine’s Day! Should You Have Sex With a Robot? [online] Time. Available at: https://time.com/4667788/robot-sex-ethics/.
Döring, N., 2020. Sex Dolls and Sex Robots. Encyclopedia of Sexuality and Gender, [online] pp.1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_63-1.
Döring, N., Mohseni, M.R. and Walter, R., 2020. Design, Use, and Effects of Sex Dolls and Sex Robots: Sco** Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, [online] 22(7), p.e18551. https://doi.org/10.2196/18551.
Dubé, S., Santaguida, M., Zhu, C.Y., Di Tomasso, S., Hu, R., Cormier, G., Johnson, A.P. and Vachon, D., 2022. Sex robots and personality: It is more about sex than robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 136, p.107403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107403.
Gert, B. and Gert, J., 2020. The Definition of Morality. Fall 2020ed . [online] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#MoraLinkNormForRespBeha.
Jecker, N.S., 2021. Nothing to be ashamed of: sex robots for older adults with disabilities. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(1), pp.26–32. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106645.
Levy, D., 2007. Love and sex with robots : the evolution of human-robot relationships. Harper: New York.
McArthur, N., 2017. “The Case for Sex Robots,” in J. Danaher and N. McArthur (eds.) Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications, 31–46. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Nast, C., 2018. You Can Now Buy a Male Sex Robot That Features the Penis of Your Choice. [online] Allure. Available at: https://www.allure.com/story/realbotix-henry-male-sex-robot-with-artificial-intelligence [Accessed 1 Feb. 2024].
Navarrete Gil, C., Ramaiah, M., Mantsios, A., Barrington, C. and Kerrigan, D., 2021. Best Practices and Challenges to Sex Worker Community Empowerment and Mobilisation Strategies to Promote Health and Human Rights. Sex Work, Health, and Human Rights, pp.189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64171-9_11.
Nussbaum, M.C., 2011. The fragility of goodness luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge Cambridge Univ. Press Cambridge Cambridge Univ. Press.
Piazza, J. and Sousa, P., 2019. What Makes People Think That an Action is Morally Wrong? | Society for Personality and Social Psychology. [online] spsp.org. Available at: https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/what-makes-people-think-action-morally-wrong.
Richardson, K., 2015. The asymmetrical ‘relationship’. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45(3), pp.290–293. https://doi.org/10.1145/2874239.2874281.
Schroeder, T., 2009. Desire (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [online] Stanford.edu. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desire/.
Scott, J. and Kumar, N., 2022. Male Sex Workers as Students. Springer eBooks, pp.201–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07777-7_9.
Sparrow, R., 2017. Robots, Rape, and Representation. International Journal of Social Robotics, [online] 9(4), pp.465–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0413-z.
Sterri, A.B. and Earp, B.D., 2021. The Ethics of Sex Robots. The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198857815.013.13.
Strikwerda, L., 2017. Legal and Moral Implications of Child Sex Robots. in J Danaher & N McArthur (eds), Robot Sex. Social and ethical implications. MIT Press, pp. 133-152. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262036689.001.0001.
Tonna-Barthet, C., 2018. The Harmful Effects of Sex Robots. Trinity Women & Gender Minorities Review, [online] 2(1), pp.23–32. Available at: https://ojs.tchpc.tcd.ie/index.php/TrinityWomensReview/article/view/2049 [Accessed 2 Feb. 2024].
University of Manitoba, 2014. Sex with robots, the moral and legal implications. [online] Umanitoba.ca. Available at: https://news.umanitoba.ca/sex-with-robots-the-moral-and-legal-implications/.
Xu, H., 2021. What Kinds of Use of Sex Robots Can Be Morally Allowed? A Confucian Perspective. Philosophical studies in contemporary culture, pp.129–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82280-4_8.
Yaffe, G., 2022. What is an intention? Oxford University Press eBooks, pp.5–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197572153.003.0001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ukpaka, P.M. Sex Robots and Moral Problems: A Conditional Approach. ZEMO 7, 69–85 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42048-024-00168-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42048-024-00168-3