When Should Automobile Manufacturers Eliminate the Use of Robots - Coursework Example

WHEN SHOULD AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ELIMINATE THE USE OF ROBOTS? Name Institution Professor Course Date Introduction The ethics of technology application arises from the theory of the role of technology in society and human life thereby introducing a bias into moral evaluation of its use. In the contemporary technology-compelled world, robots play a crucial role in manufacturing. The automobile industry is a leading user of robots because they enhance safety, cost effectiveness and job efficiency besides eliminating human errors. While the use of robots comes with enormous benefits to most workplaces, these robots have been a major cause of unemployment in the modern world. The automotive robots hold the ability to work for 24 hours without a break hence saving millions of money for automobile manufacturers. Automotive robots have taken over the role of human beings in the workplace given that companies need to pursue automation to remain competitive. The use of robots seems not to end any time soon and the constant integration of robots into the workplace will hold comprehensive and intricate to predict effects. This essay tries to answer the question, ‘when should automobile manufacturers eliminate the use of robots through application of utilitarianism, Kantian, virtue and maxims ethics. The automobile industry can only exterminate the use of robots if the end results of the robots are not beneficial and causes the greatest number of bad consequences and the least good consequences, when the moral worth and motive of duty does not correspond with maxim and when the character of the industry lead to loss or dishonour. The Use and Impacts of Robots in Automobile Industry According to Brinkman and Sanders (2014, p.330), the media usually portray love for robots as a cultural occurrence distinct to Japan. Brinkman and Sanders (2014, p.330) further assert that American tend to view robots as evil and threatening and often blame them for taking away manufacturing jobs. On the other hand, the Japanese view robots as benevolent and they hold a friendly and long history in Japan. According to Vandernorght (2008, p.9), the Japanese government and private firms are investing heavily in humanoid robots. The automotive industry has made the most comprehensive use of robotics although robots are also used in mining of coal, in healthcare and assembling computers among other areas. According to Boreham, Parker and Hall (2010, p. 48), a world report on robots indicated that there were at least 760,000 robots utilized in the world by 2002 with Japan holding the highest number of robots, 360,000. The expectations concerning the growth of robots in automobile industry are strong given the reduction in the cost of robots. For instance, in 2002, Toyota Company replaced its flexible manufacturing system with a novel system “global body line” which augmented the number of robots used in the company resulting to launching of more advanced robots (Boreham, Parker & Hall 2010, and p.48). Much of the effects that robots hold in automobile industry workforce are contingent to ‘technical replaceability’ (Siciliano & Khatib 2008, p.3). When the extraordinary potential of a robotics and artificial intelligence is actualised and continues, it could change employment blueprints radically leaving many people out of the employment sector. According to (Borenstein 2011, p.90), the use of robots sharply disrupts people because work related activities are centralised and accomplished from a distance. Job opening disappears because duties that are customarily performed by many people are streamlined or replaced (Borenstein 2011, p. 90). Robots have taken over human jobs in automobile industry and scores of manufacturers have eradicated human labour to eliminate human errors, save money, increase productivity and profitability, save on costs and increase job efficiency through multi-tasking. According to Pride, Hughes and Kapoor (2012, p. 231), robots work steadily, accurately and quickly and they are effective in wearisome, repetitive jobs and tackling of perilous materials. Robots hold the ability to take the role of many people in a workplace and they are capable of replicating the mechanistic facets of highly skilled jobs (Bringsjord 2008, p.541). However, this does not necessarily resolve issue of whether the use of robot is ethically suitable As robots become more autonomous in the automobile manufacturing, the idea of computer-regulated machine experiencing ethical decisions is coming into the real world and moving out of the sphere of science invention. The society requires finding means to guarantee that it is well equipped with the knowledge needed to make moral decisions. Issues that robotics ethicists encounter today are enormous and solving these forms of issues can be done through application of major moral philosophies. The call on when to eliminate robots in automobile manufacturing can be guided through Utilitarian, Kantian, Virtue and Maxim ethics. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism entails a normative ethical philosophy that consign the locus of wrong and right solely on the upshots or the consequences of choosing a particular action. This theory surpasses the scope of personal interests and considers the interests of others. Utilitarianism stresses on the consequences where utility of actions must lead to good consequences and not bad consequences. The utilitarianism supports the rule linked to nomaleficence and beneficence and beneficence entails acting in a manner that benefit others as well as acting to prevent harm and producing positive upshots. Although use of robots benefits automobile industry stakeholders, it instigates unhappiness to jobless people. With respect to nonmaleficence, the automobile industry should stop actions that cause harm to other people. According to Hitchcock, Schubert and Thomas (2009, p.142), utilitarianism is a kind of teleology and teleology is the ethical theory that determines wrongness or right on the basis of an estimate of the probable consequence. Utilitarianism focuses on the utility or usefulness instead of the moral duty or obligation. With respect to utilitarianism ethics, the wrongness or rightness of human actions is determined through an assessment of the upshots. The utility of an action is judged depending on whether a given action bring about the greatest number of good consequences and the least number of evil upshots and by extension, greater good than evil in the world (Hitchcock, Schubert & Thomas 2009, p.142). With respect to the use of robots in the automobile manufacturing, robots come with enormous benefits to the industry in the sense that they reduce human errors; enhance human safety, increase efficiency besides saving on costs. Bentham’s principle of utility acknowledges the basic role of pleasure and pain in human life, disapproves or approves of an action on the foundation of the amount of pleasure or pain brought by the action. Based on the use of robots in automotive industry, robots brings a lot of pleasure to the industry as they lower costs, increases efficiency besides lowering human errors but, on the other hand, bring a lot of pain to people whose jobs are lost and replaced by robots. While the industry remains happy because of the benefits of the robots, jobless people remain unhappy. Utilitarianism stresses on capitalising on happiness for most people. With regard to Bentham’s utility principle, the pain and pleasure are measurable (Cohen& Fermon 1996, p. 371). John Mill, on the other hand, confirms that it is not the quantity of happiness or pleasures that matters, but the quality. Mill principle of utility maintain that any action must promote higher pleasures for most people and with respect to use of robots in manufacturing, firms benefits while jobless employees become unhappy. The right act according to utilitarianism brings about the superlative results and the slightest bad results. Stuart and Bentham concur that the costs of human actions for the most part add to their ethical value. Human actions are acceptable if their upshot instigate happiness. Equally, human actions are wrong if they offer pain instead of happiness. Happiness is the desired pleasure which provides no chance for pain. While Bentham believes that the variances in happiness can be measureable, Mill holds that the types of pleasures experienced by human beings are diverse in qualitative means. Mill further asserts that people are capable of judging their virtual character if only they have experienced different kinds of pleasures. Bentham believes that it is the cause and effects of nature that steer human actions and the nature has two major things to offer, pleasure and pain (Cohen& Fermon 1996, p. 371). He believes that the rule of utility is the one that back up or censures human actions. As concerns the use of robots in automotive manufacturing, their use cannot be censured by company owners because they bring a lot of happiness. If human actions despite how immoral they appear are steered to offering advantages, pleasure, good or benefits then these actions are correct due to their utility level (Cohen& Fermon 1996, p.372). In this view, the use of robots in automobile manufacturing will be eliminated when these robots fail to offer any benefit and instead cause unhappiness to the industry stakeholders. If these robots continue to prompt happiness to the industry’s stakeholders, then there lacks any need of eliminating them. Some forms of human actions such as use of robots to increase efficiency, lower human errors, lower and costs, which may be termed as wrong or immoral but upon coherent discussion and deliberation, such actions are taken to be correct due to their end results. Bentham and Mill measure the value of human actions. If the use of robots offers benefits and leads to happiness, they cannot be prevented by restrictions. Bentham maintains that every human action has its cause and effects and it is these two aspects that direct human actions. If the effects of an action are to reduce pain and lead to happiness, then nothing can prevent such actions (Cohen& Fermon 1996, p.372). Utilitarianism requires that human beings observe and establish moral, legal and social rules that allow every human being to have a good life, a life rich in enjoyments both in quality and quantity. The society must guarantee that the socio-economy conditions of a non- impecunious life prevail. According to Sandler (2008, p.373), machine ethicists have adopted more intricate ethical theories such as utilitarianism that entails the greatest good for the greatest number to direct the design of moral machines. As such the machines benefits the automobile industry’s stakeholders through offering the greatest goods while on the other disadvantage jobless people through creating pain. Kantianism and Maxims Kantian ethics is an ethical theory generated in the general principle of Kant (Wood 2007, p.1). While the Utilitarian ethics view the end results of a person’s actions as relevant, Kantian ethics view ones intention to do something as essential to the morality of one’s actions. Kant asserts that the only thing that holds complete value is good will. Kant provides judgment for every action that is carried out with an intention. He argues that there a number of actions which are carried out because they are right. Other actions are undertaken out of mixed motives while others are carried out because they are a duty. Undertaking an action because one is capable, according to Kant shows that one has both moral value and motive of duty (Kant 2005, p. 15). Kant maintains that when a person undertakes a given action to prove his/her ability, the ability depicted by that person demonstrates his motive of duty. Nevertheless, if a person does or fails to undertake an action because of other reasons which lack motives, then he/she lacks moral value. Kantian ethics requires people to act in a manner that treats humanity besides treating others with due regard. To respect other people entails the willingness to live with respect to maxims that the other person is also willing to without lack of respect (Sterba 2009, p. 237). With respect to categorical imperative, people should act on the maxim that they will to be done to them. Using somebody as a simple means is to engross the person in a plan of action that the person can not or do not consent (Song & Kim 2009, p. 93). With respect to Kantian ethics, automobile manufacturers should treat people as ends and act beneficently and justly. They should respect other people as rational persons through supporting their maxims and plans by sharing their ends. The maxim is a statement of one rationale or intent why people do the things they do (Lin, Abney & Bekey 2011, p.41). Kant believes that when someone gets involved in genuine action, the individual always operates on some kind of general principle (Sterba 2009, p. 237).I believe that the use of robots in automobile manufacturing is not a bad idea and they are used to benefit the industry and its stakeholders. Whenever, the manufacturers want to lower their costs, increase efficiency and reduce human errors, they can only achieve this through the use of robots even if they know the robots will replace human labour. Automobile manufacturers act beneficently to seek the happiness of others. However, they cannot pursue everything that other people wants. Automobile manufacturers embrace the cooperation amid robots and humans. They use the human actor as a means to attain a particular end. According to Kant’s formula of humanity, it is a contravention of human dignity for an individual to be used as a means toward a certain end. The formula of humanity protects dignity and autonomy of humans. Robots in automobile industry are embraced for human actors to attain the industry’s goals. Robots are a means to a given end and they replace human actions to increase efficiency, lower costs and lower human errors. Automobile manufacturers use robots to attain their ends without considering the happiness of the people replaced by these robots. From my own point of view, the use of robots in automobile manufacturing is useful as it benefits human beings. These companies should be respected and be allowed to use their autonomy given that Kant’s ethical theory mirrors the optimistic trust in the objectivity of the value of individual autonomy and human reason. Duties not to harm but to benefit human beings are essential. With respects to Kantian ethics, motives to use robots in manufacturing are essential as opposed to consequences. An action is praiseworthy and morally good if it is conducted from a sense of duty or good will. It is not adequate to do the correct thing, but it must be conducted if the actor deems that the action is morally right .Use of robots in manufacturing industry is moral because the intent is to increase productivity and profitability although at the expense of others losing their jobs. Virtue Ethics According to Devettere (2002, p.52), virtue ethics is attuned to the certain facets of each individual moral agent and every situation where the agent makes judgement. A crucial account of what is happiness and happy life is undermines the kindliness of their ethics. They are scores of means where life can go well and every individual’s happiness relies on the characteristic aspects of the individual’s character and the situations in which the agent subsist. Virtue ethics stresses the role of virtue and character instead of duty or good consequences linked to human actions. Aristotle declared that a virtuous individual hold ideal character traits (O’Mathuna 2009, p.199). For instance, a virtuous individual is someone who demonstrates kindness across diverse situations because of his character as opposed to maximising utility or performing a moral duty. Aristotle affirms that human mind condition creates agitation that impact honour and profit leading to disgrace and loss (Cohen & Fermon 1996, p.123). What triggers people to undertake things are the disturbances and occasions that crosses their mind. The occasions include honour and profit as it is with the automobile industry. These two facets instigate dissent as people typically think that other persons receive remarkable benefits through unjust and just means (Cohen& Fermon 1996, p.23). In relation to use of robots in manufacturing, Aristotle asserts that human beings are quite different as far as virtues are concerned and that is why automobile companies find nothing wrong in using robots in place of human beings. Variations in virtues make people diverge in aptitudes in which they execute their daily duties. Human performances are delineated by their characters and the virtues. The action of Human beings are steered by some form of establishments which gives the notion that in life there cannot be a ample greatness from the human perspectives. As a result, I believe that human actions can be viewed and argued from different perspectives. According to Aristotle’s virtue ethics, the superiority of being a fine being cannot in please everybody making human actions not to necessarily offer ultimate satisfaction to everyone. While the automobile stakeholders find increased benefits in the use of robots, some people find robots as a threat to the employment sector. Conclusion Robots today are making a great impact on many facets of contemporary life from industrial manufacturing to transportation, healthcare to mention but a few. In future robots will be as personal and invasive as the modern personal computers. The dream to form intelligent and skilled machine has been a portion of humanity and these robots are undeniably changing most workplaces. The modern manufacturing of automobile is more intricate and most of the activities are accomplished through the use robots to guarantee precision. Although robots are quite expensive, they are helpful in the automobile industry and most automobile manufactures have eradicated human labour to increase efficiency, save cost and lower human errors. With respect to the utilitarianism, there are major benefits of using robots because of their utility level. Kantian ethics, on the other hand, ascertain that the motive of using robots is to create more benefits to the industry even though human labour will be lost. Even though the automobile industry does not demonstrate kindness to jobless people replaced by robots, the excellence of being a virtuous individual cannot please everyone, hence human actions cannot offer ultimate satisfaction to everyone. In this regard, automobile industry can eradicate the use of robots if the robots causes the greatest number of evil or bad consequences and the least good consequences, when the moral worth and motive of duty does not correspond with maxim and when the character of the industry lead to loss or ignominy. References List Boreham, P, Parker, R & Hall, R 2007, New technology at work, Routledge, UK. Borenstein, J 2011, ‘ Robots and the changing workforce’, AI & Society, Vol 26, no.2, pp.87-93. Bringsjord, S 2008, ‘ Ethical robots: The future can heed us’, AI & Society, Vol 22 , no.4, pp. 539-550. Brinkman, W & Sanders, A 2012, Ethics in a computing culture, Cengage Learning, UK. Cohen, M & Fermon, N 1996, Princeton readings in political thought: essential texts since Plato, Princeton University Press, New York. Devettere, R 2002, Introduction to virtue ethics: Insights of the ancient Greeks, Georgetown University Press, USA. Hitchcock, J, Schubert, P & Thomas, S 2003, Community health nursing: Caring in action, Volume 1, Cengage Learning, UK. Kant, I 2005, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Broadview Press, New York. Lin, P, Abney, K & Bekey, G 2011, Robot ethics: The ethical social implications of robotics, MIT, UK. O’Mathuna, D 2009, Nanoethics: Big ethical issues with small technology, A&C Black, London. Pride, W, Hughes, R & Kapoor, J 2012, Foundations of business, Cengage Learning, UK. Sandler, R 2013, Ethics and emerging technologies, Palgrave Macmillan, UK. Siciliano, B & Khatib, O 2008, Springer handbook of robotics, Springer Science & Business Media, UK. Song, K & Kim, B 2009, Respect for the elderly: Implications for human service providers, University Press of America, USA. Sterba, J 2009, Ethics: The big questions, John Wiley & Sons, UK. Vanderborght, B 2010, Dynamic stabilisation of the biped Lucy powered by actuators with controllable stiffness, Springer & Business Media, UK. Read More

According to Boreham, Parker and Hall (2010, p. 48), a world report on robots indicated that there were at least 760,000 robots utilized in the world by 2002 with Japan holding the highest number of robots, 360,000. The expectations concerning the growth of robots in automobile industry are strong given the reduction in the cost of robots. For instance, in 2002, Toyota Company replaced its flexible manufacturing system with a novel system “global body line” which augmented the number of robots used in the company resulting to launching of more advanced robots (Boreham, Parker & Hall 2010, and p.48). Much of the effects that robots hold in automobile industry workforce are contingent to ‘technical replaceability’ (Siciliano & Khatib 2008, p.3). When the extraordinary potential of a robotics and artificial intelligence is actualised and continues, it could change employment blueprints radically leaving many people out of the employment sector.

According to (Borenstein 2011, p.90), the use of robots sharply disrupts people because work related activities are centralised and accomplished from a distance. Job opening disappears because duties that are customarily performed by many people are streamlined or replaced (Borenstein 2011, p. 90). Robots have taken over human jobs in automobile industry and scores of manufacturers have eradicated human labour to eliminate human errors, save money, increase productivity and profitability, save on costs and increase job efficiency through multi-tasking.

According to Pride, Hughes and Kapoor (2012, p. 231), robots work steadily, accurately and quickly and they are effective in wearisome, repetitive jobs and tackling of perilous materials. Robots hold the ability to take the role of many people in a workplace and they are capable of replicating the mechanistic facets of highly skilled jobs (Bringsjord 2008, p.541). However, this does not necessarily resolve issue of whether the use of robot is ethically suitable As robots become more autonomous in the automobile manufacturing, the idea of computer-regulated machine experiencing ethical decisions is coming into the real world and moving out of the sphere of science invention.

The society requires finding means to guarantee that it is well equipped with the knowledge needed to make moral decisions. Issues that robotics ethicists encounter today are enormous and solving these forms of issues can be done through application of major moral philosophies. The call on when to eliminate robots in automobile manufacturing can be guided through Utilitarian, Kantian, Virtue and Maxim ethics. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism entails a normative ethical philosophy that consign the locus of wrong and right solely on the upshots or the consequences of choosing a particular action.

This theory surpasses the scope of personal interests and considers the interests of others. Utilitarianism stresses on the consequences where utility of actions must lead to good consequences and not bad consequences. The utilitarianism supports the rule linked to nomaleficence and beneficence and beneficence entails acting in a manner that benefit others as well as acting to prevent harm and producing positive upshots. Although use of robots benefits automobile industry stakeholders, it instigates unhappiness to jobless people.

With respect to nonmaleficence, the automobile industry should stop actions that cause harm to other people. According to Hitchcock, Schubert and Thomas (2009, p.142), utilitarianism is a kind of teleology and teleology is the ethical theory that determines wrongness or right on the basis of an estimate of the probable consequence. Utilitarianism focuses on the utility or usefulness instead of the moral duty or obligation. With respect to utilitarianism ethics, the wrongness or rightness of human actions is determined through an assessment of the upshots.

The utility of an action is judged depending on whether a given action bring about the greatest number of good consequences and the least number of evil upshots and by extension, greater good than evil in the world (Hitchcock, Schubert & Thomas 2009, p.142).

Read More