1. Turkle’s argument contains mainly a psychological view of computer’s impact on today’s society. Her focus lies in “relational artifacts” that first came to civilization in the 1960s. The first inventions of relatable robots or computers that interacted with humans showed human’s willingness to share things with a robot rather than a real person. Beyond the believed understanding these objects contain, their designs were altered so that they required nurturing from the person using it. These effects on the human race display our needs rather than the capabilities of modern technology. According to Darwin, humans are attracted to things that show interest in what they are saying, empathize with their feelings, or even ask for their constant care and affection. Despite human’s natural need to be needed, and the undeniable want to be wanted, Turkle asks whether or not these relationships contain any value if the robot does not contribute to the meaning of humanity.
2. Turkle’s concern exists in the question of whether or not these relationships with robots are actually good for humans in a moral sense. These beliefs are a natural cause of great change—when something new is invented, …show more content…
Dennett adopted an Anglo-American point of view in that a being needs to have motivational purpose and cognitive belief to be a moral agent. I do not believe that based on these criteria, that the robot in Germany should be held responsible for the death of the worker. Firstly, the worker was not handling the robot in the safest way he could. As far as I know from reading the article, the robot could not have the capacity to feel like it needed to take revenge on the worker or feel like it needed to defend itself. Just because robots are designed to complete human tasks, does not mean we can assume that they feel human emotions or motivations. A determination cannot be made because the article did not specify whether or not the robot was capable of self-awareness in this
2. Turkle’s concern exists in the question of whether or not these relationships with robots are actually good for humans in a moral sense. These beliefs are a natural cause of great change—when something new is invented, …show more content…
Dennett adopted an Anglo-American point of view in that a being needs to have motivational purpose and cognitive belief to be a moral agent. I do not believe that based on these criteria, that the robot in Germany should be held responsible for the death of the worker. Firstly, the worker was not handling the robot in the safest way he could. As far as I know from reading the article, the robot could not have the capacity to feel like it needed to take revenge on the worker or feel like it needed to defend itself. Just because robots are designed to complete human tasks, does not mean we can assume that they feel human emotions or motivations. A determination cannot be made because the article did not specify whether or not the robot was capable of self-awareness in this