In a recent proposal issued by the European Parliament, it was suggested that robots and AI might need to be considered “electronic persons” for the purposes of social and legal integration. The very idea sparked controversy, and it has been met with considerable resistance. Underlying the controversy, however, is an important ethical question: When (if ever) would it be necessary for robots, AI, or other socially interactive, autonomous systems to have some claim to moral and legal standing? When (if ever) would a technological artifact need to be considered more than a mere instrument of human action and have some legitimate claim to independent social status? Or to put it more directly: Can or should robots ever have anything like rights?

In this presentation, Gunkel offers a provocative argument demonstrating what has been previously regarded as unthinkable: that robots and other technological artifacts of our own making can and should have some claim to rights and that this assignment of moral/legal status is not something for the future, but is necessary here and now for the sake of respecting the integrity of existing moral and legal systems.

Can robots have rights? Should robots have rights? Listen in to what David Gunkel thinks!

Dr. Ashley Atkins of WMU's Philosophy department joins Ethics Center G.A. Taylor Koopman to talk about collective loss, mourning, and how grief can be used for political movements and institutions. Join us at Dr. Atkins' talk on Oct. 4. More info at wmich.edu/ethics.

The past years have been marked by a high number of conflicts with mass atrocities and humanitarian emergencies. The civil wars in Yemen and South Sudan or the fate of the Rohingya in Myanmar provide only a few examples. Most of these situations are in dire need of responsible external support for humanitarian relief or conflict solution. Yet, in the political discourses of many countries, they hardly emerge as relevant issues, if at all. This stands in stark contrast, not only to the common promise of the UN charter, but also to value-laden aims of national foreign policies. Using Germany as a case study, this talk examines the thesis that mass atrocity situations are silenced in globally influential countries, which thus fail to assume their responsibilities. By applying discourse-analysis to statements of the chancellor, foreign ministers and parliamentary faction leaders, it is argued that Germany, in fact, silences mass atrocity situations. Three silencing mechanisms - non-mentioning, trivialisation and framing - are
Identified, allowing us to draw important implications regarding future theoretical and explanatory analysis.

Welcome to Life is Better with Ethics - the official podcast for the Center for the Study of Ethics in Society at Western Michigan University. Today's episode uncovers the fall happenings at the center and our host, Taylor, is joined by Dr. Bernhard Stahl from the University of Passau to talk about the silencing of mass atrocities.