skip to main content
10.1145/1349822.1349839acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Governing lethal behavior: embedding ethics in a hybrid deliberative/reactive robot architecture

Published:12 March 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper provides the motivation and philosophy underlying the design of an ethical control and reasoning system potentially suitable for constraining lethal actions in an autonomous robotic system, so that its behavior will fall within the bounds prescribed by the Laws of War and Rules of Engagement. This research, funded by the U.S. Army Research Office, is intended to ensure that robots do not behave illegally or unethically in the battlefield. Reasons are provided for the necessity of developing such a system at this time, as well as arguments for and against its creation.

References

  1. Arkin, R.C., "Governing Ethical Behavior: Embedding an Ethical Controller in a Hybrid Deliberative-Reactive Robot Architecture - Part II: Formalization for Ethical Control", Proc. 1st Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, Memphis, TN, March 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Arkin, R.C., "Governing Lethal Behavior: Embedding Ethics in a Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Robot Architecture - Part III: Representational and Architectural Considerations", Proc. Technology in Wartime Conference, Stanford, CA, Jan. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkin, R.C., "Governing Ethical Behavior: Embedding an Ethical Controller in a Hybrid Deliberative-Reactive Robot Architecture", GVU Technical Report GIT-GVU-07-11, College of Computing, Georgia Tech, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. May, L., Rovie, E., and Viner, S., The Morality of War: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Clausewitz, C. Von, "On the Art of War", in The Morality of War: Classical and Contemporary Readings, (Eds. L. May, E. Rovie, and S. Viner 2005), Pearson-Prentice Hall, pp. 115-121, 1832.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, M., The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the U.S. Military, State University of New York Press, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Wells, D., (Ed.), An Encyclopedia of War and Ethics, Greenwood Press, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Walzer, M., Just and Unjust Wars, 4th Ed., Basic Books, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Fieser, J. and Dowden, B., "Just War Theory", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Defense Joint Publication 1-02, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, April 2001, Amended through June 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartle, A., Moral Issues in Military Decision Making, 2nd Ed., Revised, University Press of Kansas, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Wikipedia, "Laws of War", 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war,.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Yoder, J.H., "When War is Unjust: Being Honest in Just-War Thinking", in The Morality of War: Classical and Contemporary Readings, (Eds. L. May, et al, 2005), Pearson-Prentice Hall, pp. 153-159, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Department of Defense, Unmanned Systems Safety Guide for DOD Acquisition, 1st Edition, Version .96, Jan. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Argy, P., "Ethics Dilemma in Killer Bots", Australian IT News, June 14, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Samsung Techwin, http://www.samsungtechwin.com/product/features/dep/SSsystem_e/SSsystem.html, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumagai, J., "A Robotic Sentry for Korea's Demilitarized Zone", IEEE Spectrum, March 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jewell, M., "Taser, iRobot team up to arm robots", AP News Wire, June 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster-Miller Inc., "Products & Service: TALON Military Robots, EOD, SWORDS, and Hazmat Robots", http://www.foster-miller.com/lemming.htm, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Opall-Rome, B., "Israel Wants Robotic Guns, Missiles to Guard Gaza", Defensenews.com, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lockheed-Martin, Mule /ARV-A(L), Fact Sheet, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Air Force, "Reaper moniker given to MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle", Official Website of the United States Air Force, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Erwin, S., "For the First Time, Navy will Launch Weapons from Surveillance Drones", National Defense, June 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. U.S. Army SBIR Solicitation 07.2, Topic A07-032 "Multi-Agent Based Small Unit Effects Planning and Collaborative Engagement with Unmanned Systems", pp. Army 57--68, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Joint Government/Industry Unmanned Systems Safety Initiatives, "Programmatic/Design/Operational Safety Precepts Rev F", 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Sagan, S., "Rules of Engagement", in Avoiding War: Problems of Crisis Management (Ed. A. George), Westview Press, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Surgeon General's Office, Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07, Final Report, Nov. 17, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Bill, B. (Ed.), Law of War Workshop Deskbook, International and Operational Law Department, Judge Advocate General's School, June 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Sparrow, R., "Killer Robots", Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 24, No.1, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Sparrow, R., Personal Communication, July 2, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Asaro, P., "What Should We Want From a Robot Ethic?" International Review of Information Ethics, Vol. 6, pp. 9--16, Dec. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Perri 6, "Ethics, Regulation and the New Artificial Intelligence, Part II: Autonomy and Liability", Information, Communication and Society, 4:3, pp. 406--434, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Sullins, J., "When is a Robot a Moral Agent?" International Journal of information Ethics, Vol. 6, 12, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Dennett, D., "When HAL Kills, Who's to Blame?", in HAL's Legacy: 2001's Computer as Dream and Reality, (Ed. D. Stork), MIT Press, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Himma, K., "Artificial Agency, Consciousness, and the Criteria for Moral Agency: What Properties Must an Artificial Agent Have to be a Moral Agent?" 7th International Computer Ethics Conference, San Diego, CA, July 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Asaro, P., "How Just Could a Robot War Be?", presentation at 5th European Computing and Philosophy Conference, Twente, NL, June 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Canning, J., Riggs, G., Holland, O., Blakelock, C., "A Concept for the Operation of Armed Autonomous Systems on the Battlefield", Proc. AUVSI 2004, Anaheim, CA, Aug. 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Woodruff, P., "Justification or Excuse: Saving Soldiers at the Expense of Civilians", in The Morality of War: Classical and Contemporary Readings, (Eds. L. May, E. Rovie, and S. Viner, 2005), Pearson-Prentice Hall, pp. 281--291, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Anderson, K., "The Ethics of Robot Soldiers?", Kenneth Anderson's Law of Jaw and Just War Theory Blog, July 4, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Likhachev, M., Kaess, M., and Arkin, R.C., "Learning Behavioral Parameterization Using Spatio-Temporal Case-based Reasoning", 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Washington, D.C., May 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Ram, A., Arkin, R.C., Moorman, K., and Clark, R.J., "Case-based Reactive Navigation: A case-based method for on-line selection and adaptation of reactive control parameters in autonomous robotic systems", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Volume 27, Part B, No. 3, June 1997, pp. 376--394. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Walzer, M., Arguing About War, Yale Univ. Press, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Bring, O., "International Humanitarian Law After Kosovo: Is Lex Lata Sufficient?", in Legal and Ethical Lessons of NATO's Kosovo Campaign, International Law Studies (Ed. A. Wall), Naval War College, Vol. 78, pp. 257--272, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Asimov, I. I, Robot, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1950.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Asimov, I., Robots and Empire, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Anderson, S., "Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics' and Machine Metaethics", AI and Society, Springer, published online March 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Governing lethal behavior: embedding ethics in a hybrid deliberative/reactive robot architecture

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      HRI '08: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction
      March 2008
      402 pages
      ISBN:9781605580173
      DOI:10.1145/1349822

      Copyright © 2008 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 March 2008

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate242of1,000submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader