i don’t believe that would negate it but i do believe such a system would serve to ameliorate it. i don’t know if anything short of full autonomy would serve to negate it.
2 Likes
That’s really the crux of it, ethically speaking. Is it enough to ameliorate, especially with the understanding that doing so would be contrary to the function of the bot, and that it would certainly be worked around?
I’m personally neither for or against the bots, but I am interested in the ethical questions around them.
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Exactly. These are the lines that will have to be drawn.
If the purpose of access limitations is to draw an ethical line, then I would say that it is outside of existing hacking ethics.
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.
2 Likes
Great discussion. I apologize in advance for the follow quip.
Half the planet owns computers. 
3 Likes
i definitely don’t have answers to all of the questions you and i have raised. in effect i’ve been taking inspiration from the issues you’ve raised to try and create a first draft in my own head towards the ethics of the whole situation. it seems to me that crucial distinction will be in the matter of drawing the line between inanimate object and slave. the boundary conditions of that distinction and the way is drawn are going to say a great deal about what kind of ethical creatures humans are.
i posit those measures precisely to make the stakes more uncomfortable. i’ve had an aversion to the phrase “heighten the contradictions” since the last election but my motive in raising those measures is definitely to throw the ethical implications into sharper relief, both for my own consideration as well as for others.
i don’t delude myself that these issues are going to be worked out here in a few exchanges of questions and comments but i appreciate your perspective as i try to sort out my own feelings about it.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
