There are many arguments against why a machine can not be conscious some were expressed in Turing's paper. One argument that Daniel Dennett brought up in his book Brainchildren: Essays on Designing Minds was “Robots are purely material things, and consciousness requires immaterial mind-stuff”. I think that humans are uncomfortable with the idea that a manufactured thing can simulate our most precious possession, our mind. Therefore they created this argument to give themselves a sense of protection against science. Another argument against this was expressed once again by Rick Dennett who wrote “...every other phenomenon of initially “supernatural” mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science”.

Perhaps the best argument at the present time against robotic consciousness is robots are just too simple to have the ability of thought/consciousness. A human brain is composed of billions of parts each with its own function. All these parts rely on another part in order to give the brain a correct response for a certain action. The computing power required in order to simulate a human brain and the sheer capabilities to make a program that could comprehend everyday situations is impossible with todays technology. Whether or not this will ever be possible is beyond this paper.

For this papers sake lets say that we were able to create a robot which would be able to surpass even Bladerunner's Nexus-6 robot and would be able to simulate consciousness in every way. It would be able to learn from what it has done in the past, be taught, feel, see, hear, think for itself, and feel empathy. If a machine is indistinguishable in every mental way from a human should that machine be granted the same rights as humans? How society views androids would be a huge factor on whether we grant them rights. If society views the androids as fellow humans (for to some people humans are basically biological machines) then it would be inhumane for us not to bestow rights upon them. If we view them as something inferior then it would be human for us to take our dominance and not give them rights.

One of the most basic human rights is freedom. If a machine were granted freedom it would have the right to not be subjected to ownership. In the 1982 movie Bladerunner humanoid robots were strictly manufactured as service droids to humans who immigrated to colonies on Mars. If a humanoid robot or android were to escape to Earth (Usually by killing its master) it would be hunted down by bounty hunters and retired (which is a fancy way of saying killed). Robots in Bladerunner were not free, because they were enslaved by humans for services. Perhaps it was this lack of freedom which caused them to go to such great lengths to escape in the first place. By giving robots the right to freedom we would have to question the entire purpose of building robots. Is a robots entire function not to make life for humans easier? Maybe by giving robots the right to freedom they will have the freedom to study the fields that interest them (for our robots would have the ability to be interested by something and study it) and that would be serving humans more then picking up our trash.

Perhaps our most overlooked right that humans are granted is the right to life. We have the right to exist on this Earth. A intriguing question on robots and rights is whether humans should be able to turn the robots on or off? If a robot is given the right to live then it should be illegal for us to interfere with its conscious state. This brings up the question if a human turns off a machine would that be the equivalent to murder? The way murder is expressed in law books is “the act of killing a person”. I think the definition on whether “turning off or destroying a machine is murder” is solely based on how the society views the machines. If a person turns off a machine and thinks “I am destroying something.” then I do not believe it should constitute murder, because obviously the society does not value the machine as a equal. If a person turns off a machine and thinks “I am destroying someone.” then it should constitute murder, because the society values the machine as a individual. Therefore it is the perception of the machine as a living conscious entity which constitutes whether it truly is murder or not.

Let us say we perceive them just as machines and deny them the rights of a human. I then ask will these intellectual robots be able to gain the rights through a different means? If the androids truly are indistinguishable in every way and ability of humans then the androids should be able to devise some plan as a whole to gain these rights. For the perfect test of consciousness and intelligence is to give robots a common goal which they must all realize and work together to obtain. The consciousness comes from thinking they deserve rights and the intelligence comes from the ability to plan and organize a protest.

Perhaps a machines first “instinct” would not be to protest, but would be to destroy what is in its way, AKA the Bladerunner approach. The science fiction writer Isaac Asimov hypothesized about this danger with conscious robotics and devised these three laws to help regulate the behavior of machines. They are as follows.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The first law states that a robot may not injure or allow a human to be injured. Therefore if robots were to take violent actions to gain rights it would be in violation of the laws. If a robot does decide to take violent action against a human should we destroy all models of the machine? Further evaluation of the laws of robotics reveals that they aren't just laws for robots. They are laws of humanity. A human may not harm or allow another human to come to harm doing so would result in prosecution for murder. If a human commits a crime we do not go out and destroy all humans like them because we know that all humans throughout life grow into their own entities. This would be the same for the robots. They would all have different experiences which would generate unique thoughts allowing them to all “evolve” or grow differently. Robots then should be tried as humans if they commit violent crimes. We could not just go out and destroy all faulty units for we would be taking away the machines right to life. If we simply reprogrammed the machine we would be taking away the machines right to thought. We could only constitute killing a machine we would do the same for a human bean.

Spirituality has always been a important aspect of human society. Giving machines rights could take away from the spirituality of humanity. To say that manufactured humanity is as sacred as real humanity takes away from humans immortal soul. Humans are social creatures who strive for a greater purpose. We are driven by an energy unknown by science. Machines were created by this great energy, but they are not driven by it. As soon as we see one of our own creations as human we begin to play God. God becomes a job name for a scientist who creates physical simulations of reality. This is where humans go to the most primal instinct to protect what makes them human. Whether these arguments have any basis in science is of no importance. They are important questions which must be answered before considering giving machines rights.

Although “if machines should be given rights?” is not a topic at every families dinner table or in the courts of the world it is still an important question that deserves attention. This question requires us to look at what makes us human and what could make something else human. In order to find an appropriate solution to this question we must look at every aspect and its effects it could have on our society whether it be social, lawful, or spiritual. This is a question I believe will face us in the future for technology is always advancing and perhaps if we look at the question today we can be ready to answer it tomorrow.

I believe this paper which I used as my term paper helps reflect a deeper thinking of ethical issues which could come to face us with the advancements of Artificial Intelligence. In the paper I talked about Human rights and how they relate to Robots. I had to look at ethical issues facing us today and those which faced us in the past in order to get an idea of how it could be in the future if robots advanced to the level of consciousness.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------