Karen Lancaster

Human workers have been displaced by technology since the first industrial revolution. Today, many tasks which have hitherto been the reserve of humans can now be performed better, quicker, and more efficiently by robots or generative AI. It may therefore appear that human labour is being devalued. However, this paper argues that advances in AI and social robotics could make human-made items and human-provided services more valuable by comparison. We already value handmade items more highly than their mass-produced counterparts simply because they were made by humans; three reasons for this are discussed. Firstly, we value the time and effort of the worker; secondly, we admire their skill, creativity, and thoughtfulness; and thirdly, handmade items are often rarer than mass-produced ones. Although robots and generative AI may be able to produce unique items, we will nevertheless continue to value human-made items and human-provided services because we value the time, effort, creativity, skill, and thoughtfulness of human workers, but not generative AI or robots: this makes human labour seem more valuable by comparison.

Although sexual activity among elderly people remains taboo, residents in eldercare institutions often still have sexual desires, and catering for these desires could improve the quality of life for some of society’s most vulnerable – and most depressed – people. I argue that sexbots are apt to provide such a sexual service. I consider the potential benefits and pitfalls of other sexual possibilities, such as having sex with other residents, nurses, or sex workers, or using sexual aids to masturbation, and I suggest that although some of these have potential, the use of sexbots should nevertheless be considered in addition to them. I address some potential criticisms, including moral objections to sexbots, sex not being a physiological necessity, issues of social justice, and the fact that many others in society do not have their sexual needs catered for. I give some suggestions for safety and dexterity modifications to current sexbots to enable their safe use by elderly people.

Humanoid robots used for sexual purposes are beginning to look increasingly lifelike. It is possible for a user to have a bespoke sexbot created which matches their exact requirements in skin pigmentation, hair and eye colour, body shape, and genital design. This means that it is possible—and increasingly easy—for a sexbot to be created which bears a very high degree of resemblance to a particular person. There is a small but steadily increasing literature exploring some of the ethical issues surrounding sexbots, however sexbots made to look like particular people is something which, as yet, has not been philosophically addressed in the literature. In this essay I argue that creating a lifelike sexbot to represent and resemble someone is an act of sexual objectification which morally requires consent, and that doing so without the person’s consent is intrinsically wrong. I consider two sexbot creators: Roy and Fred. Roy creates a sexbot of Katie with her consent, and Fred creates a sexbot of Jane without her consent. I draw on the work of Alan Goldman, Rae Langton, and Martha Nussbaum in particular to demonstrate that creating a sexbot of a particular person requires consent if it is to be intrinsically permissible.

An elderly patient in a care home only wants human nurses to provide her care – not robots. If she selected her carers based on skin colour, it would be seen as racist and morally objectionable, but is choosing a human nurse instead of a robot also morally objectionable and speciesist? A plausible response is that it is not, because humans provide a better standard of care than robots do, making such a choice justifiable. In this paper, I show why this response is incorrect, because robots can theoretically care as well as human nurses can. I differentiate between practical caring and emotional caring, and I argue that robots can match the standard of practical care given by human nurses, and they can simulate emotional care. There is growing evidence that people respond positively to robotic creatures and carebots, and AI software is apt to emotionally support patients in spite of the machine’s own lack of emotions. I make the case that the appearance of emotional care is sufficient, and need not be linked to emotional states within the robot. After all, human nurses undoubtedly ‘fake’ emotional care and compassion sometimes, yet their patients still feel adequately cared for. I show that it is a mistake to claim that ‘the human touch’ is in itself a contributor to a higher standard of care; ‘the robotic touch’ will suffice. Nevertheless, it is not speciesist to favour human nurses over carebots, because carebots do not suffer as the result of such a choice.