Utilitarianism: A Solution To Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

In the end, one decides why everything happened as it did, or who was responsible? Dog owners are liable for injuries and other damages caused by the dog. Parents are liable for any criminal acts committed by the parent’s child. Or in Mary Shelley’s "Frankenstein," between Victor’s blame and Frankenstein’s actions. There is no precedent for a robot being liable for a crime. Much less a robot shopping on the darknet. However, someone must be responsible. The artists did state that it was in their intention for the robot to ‘surprise them’ with items from the darknet. Some would say it then makes sense to put them on trial because they are responsible for the actions of the robot. A solution to the problem would be to trial the robot the same as if you would trial a parent's child for buying …show more content…
Although a hybrid of utilitarian ethics and developer ethics can present a unique solution to this case. Robots can find the most logical solution to any problem. They may also succumb to hacking and viruses causing issues without strong morals. Therefore, we should look towards act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism focuses on moral rules that sound quite plausible. These rules illustrated by programming codes that are specific cases e.g. “do not buy illegal items on the dark web,” “do not buy things,” tells robots what to do or not do. There are problems that may arise from programming these robots such as non-arbitrariness and a desire for existence much like Frankenstein’s monster. We can draw parallels between happiness and well-being which comes from autonomy. Utilitarianism is the most realistic fit to this ethical problem. Act utilitarianism addresses each case specifically in terms of ethics of robots and humans. The owners of software companies should remain virtuous. This should carry on to the coders in the workplace and