Sex-robot has "family mode" switch so kids can play with it. Ethicist says it is "profoundly damaging" to children

[Magdalene]

@navarro

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?”

Exactly. These are the lines that will have to be drawn.

@navarro

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?

If the purpose of access limitations is to draw an ethical line, then I would say that it is outside of existing hacking ethics.

@navarro

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.

How can the purpose of the sex bot be anything other than to be submissive to a buyer? It, and all of it’s attendant software are masturbatory aids developed to please a consumer. Even measures aimed at harm reduction are ultimately arbitrary. It takes more than not mistreating another to get sex, to say nothing of consent, which can never really be given by a sex bot, as every detail and function is decided by us, and not the bot.

Would you buy an appliance that only worked on occasion, or that required special treatment?

Intriguing questions indeed.