this is true. the mitigation of harm is, generally speaking, ethically positive but those considerations cannot take place outside the context of the situation. would providing the bot with some pretense of autonomy reduce the harm enough to eliminate the taint of slavery? because that is what we’re really talking about here. a related question might be “at what point does a sex toy take on enough of the characteristics of an individual being that we should begin to examine the range of possible relationships with it from the standpoint of slavery?”
looking at the second clause first, is there anything about this scenario which takes it outside the realm of preexisting concepts of hacking ethics and, if so, what is there about it that does that?
going back to the first clause, why would measures taken to reduce harm be contrary to the function of the bot? unless the sole purpose of the bot was to take the role of submissive in any encounter all sexual relationships require a certain amount of give and take. indeed, even in dom/sub relationships there is generally a safe word to prevent an encounter from going beyond some limits.
the ethical questions are certainly very intriguing.
