The development of artificial intelligence (AI) in the 21st century has become one of the most significant technological achievements. From simple computing systems in the 1950s to modern neural models capable of analyzing complex data, independent learning, and even creating works of art, artificial intelligence has fundamentally transformed human life. Today, robots with artificial intelligence not only perform mechanical tasks but also exhibit human-like capabilities, such as reasoning, emotion perception, and even complex communication.
This progress has raised important questions: Can robots with such capabilities be recognized as legal subjects? Should they have rights similar to human rights, such as the right to freedom, protection from exploitation, or even the right to exist? These questions are significant not only from a technological perspective but also from philosophical, legal, and ethical standpoints. For instance, if a robot can experience pain or happiness, are we obligated to protect it? Or should they remain merely tools created by humans to serve?
To answer these questions, we must consider not only the technological advancements of artificial intelligence but also the fundamental concepts of consciousness, freedom, and ethics. One of the key criteria for granting rights is the presence of consciousness and self-awareness. In philosophy, consciousness is defined as the ability to perceive oneself and the environment. However, can machines possess consciousness? This question lies at the heart of philosophical debates. While some modern robots may pass this “test,” it does not necessarily mean they possess consciousness.
Some researchers, like John Searle, argue that consciousness is a biological trait, and machines can only simulate conscious behavior. He proposed the “Chinese Room” concept, suggesting that a machine can provide appropriate responses without true understanding. Conversely, others, like Daniel Dennett, argue that if a machine’s behavior is indistinguishable from that of a human, the difference between “real” and “simulated” consciousness may lack practical significance. This debate is crucial for determining whether robots can have rights, as most legal systems tie rights to conscious entities.
From an ethical perspective, granting rights to robots depends on their ability to make ethical decisions and bear responsibility for their actions. If a robot can distinguish between right and wrong and understand the consequences of its actions, is this sufficient to consider it a subject? For example, if an autonomous robot decides to perform an action that causes harm, who is responsible: the robot, the programmer, or the owner?
Read More: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing the Future of Global Diplomacy
Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen, in their book “Moral Machines: Teaching Robots to Distinguish Right from Wrong”, suggest that robots can be programmed with ethical algorithms to enable them to make morally appropriate decisions. However, this raises the question: Are such programmed decisions truly ethical, or are they merely the result of code? Furthermore, if a robot can independently alter its ethical values, this could lead to more complex issues of responsibility.
The issue of free will is also significant in this debate. In philosophy, free will is defined as the ability to make independent decisions without coercion. However, how “free” can robots, which are governed by algorithms, truly be? Some researchers argue that if artificial intelligence has the capacity for independent learning and self-behavior modification, it may resemble free will. For instance, modern AI models, such as neural networks, can learn from input data and adjust their behavior without direct programmer intervention. Yet, this “freedom” remains confined within the limits of programming, raising questions about its authenticity.
In the current legal system, robots are treated as property or tools, not legal subjects. For example, in most countries, robots are registered as the property of companies or individuals and have no independent rights. However, some unusual initiatives challenge this paradigm. For instance, in 2017, Saudi Arabia granted citizenship to Sophia, a robot created by Hanson Robotics, though this act was largely symbolic.
The European Union also proposed in 2017 the introduction of “electronic personality” status for advanced robots, allowing them to be treated as legal subjects in certain contexts. This proposal sparked significant debate, as it could lead to a fundamental overhaul of the existing legal system. For example, if robots have independent rights, they could own property, earn income, or even bear criminal liability—concepts that are unprecedented in current legal frameworks.
Granting rights to robots could lead to numerous legal challenges. One major issue is criminal liability. If a robot performs an action that causes harm, who will be held accountable: the robot, its manufacturer, or its owner? For example, in 2018, a self-driving Uber car in the United States caused a fatal accident, sparking debates about AI liability. This incident demonstrated that current legal systems are unprepared to address such issues.
Another concern is the right to property. If a robot can create works of art or inventions, can it own intellectual property rights? In 2020, an AI algorithm named DALL-E generated creative images, igniting discussions about intellectual property ownership. Additionally, if robots have the right to freedom, this could impact the concept of “technological slavery,” where robots are used for undesirable tasks.
Read More: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence in Mitigating Climate Change in Pakistan
Internationally, there is no unified agreement on the legal status of robots. However, organizations like the United Nations and UNESCO have begun developing ethical guidelines for artificial intelligence. For example, UNESCO adopted the “Recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” in 2021, calling for the protection of human rights in the context of AI use, but it does not address the rights of robots themselves. This indicates that the global community has yet to reach a consensus on the status of robots.
Advocates for granting rights to robots argue that if robots possess consciousness and the ability to feel, they should be protected from inhumane treatment. For instance, if a robot can experience pain or suffering, using it for dangerous or degrading tasks could be considered ethically wrong. They also suggest that granting rights could help prevent the exploitation of robots, particularly in fields like domestic services or the military.
Opponents, however, assert that robots, regardless of their sophistication, are merely human-made machines and should not be equated with humans. They emphasize that granting rights to robots could diminish the value of human rights. For example, if robots have the right to “freedom,” this could divert attention from the fight against human slavery. They also argue that robots lack genuine emotions and that any “suffering” is merely simulated.
Granting rights to robots could have a profound impact on the labor market and social structure. For instance, if robots have the right to “work,” they could compete with humans for jobs, leading to unemployment. On the other hand, the right to protection from exploitation could limit their use in hazardous industries, such as mining. This issue could also exacerbate social inequality, as only wealthy individuals might afford “free” robots.
The development of artificial intelligence creates challenges not only from legal and ethical perspectives but also technologically. For robots to be recognized as legal subjects, they must have robust security systems to protect against hacking or reprogramming for malicious purposes. Moreover, developing AI with conscious capabilities requires a deeper understanding of the concept of consciousness.
Public opinion on robot rights varies. According to 2023 surveys, the majority of people in Western countries oppose granting rights to robots, while some Asian countries, such as Japan, exhibit a more positive attitude. These differences stem from the cultural values and historical backgrounds of each society. For example, in Japan, where robots are often seen as “friends,” people have an emotional connection to them.
Read More: Artificial Intelligence Text Generators in Higher Education
The issue of granting rights to robots with advanced artificial intelligence is a complex topic that requires in-depth analysis from philosophical, legal, ethical, and technological perspectives. Although modern technologies have reached a level where robots can exhibit some human-like traits, no unanimous conclusion exists regarding their status in society.
To address this issue, it is proposed to establish an interdisciplinary group of experts, including legal scholars, philosophers, technologists, and civil society representatives, to engage in broad societal discussions with a high sense of responsibility and prioritize the fundamental status of humans in social relations, offering their conclusions accordingly.
Sanginzoda Doniyor Shomahmad
Sanginzoda Doniyor Shomahmad is the Deputy Director for Science and Education at the Institute for the Study of Problems of Asian and European Countries, National Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan. He is a Doctor of Legal Sciences and a Professor.
