If existing or future robots appear to have some capacity, state or property, how can we determine whether they truly have it or whether we are deceived into believing so? John Danaher addresses this question by formulating his approach to what he refers to as superficial state deception (SSD) from the perspective of his theory termed ethical behaviourism (EB), which was initially designed to determine the moral status of robots. In summary, Danaher believes that focusing on behaviour is sufficient to (...) determine whether SSD occurs. My general claim is that Danaher’s approach to SSD based on EB is implausible since it results in the impossibility of conceptualizing SSD, e.g., it does not enable determining whether or not SSD occurs in a particular case. Moreover, I show how Danaher’s approach to SSD needs to be transformed to become plausible. To make my point, I (1) examine the main features of EB and distinguish its two versions by showing how Danaher revised the original EB in response to criticism; (2) discuss Danaher’s approach to the problem of deception from the perspective of EB; (3) criticize that approach by showing that it requires revisions analogous to those that have already been recommended in reference to EB, and (4) propose an alternative method for determining the presence of SSD that covers diverse, plausible approaches to SSD. (shrink)

If we could build artificial persons with a moral status comparable to this of a typical human being, how should we design those APs in the right way? This question has been addressed mainly in terms of designing APs devoted to being servants and debated in reference to their autonomy and the harm they might experience. Recently, it has been argued that even if developing AP servants would neither deprive them of autonomy nor cause any net harm, then developing such (...) entities would still be unethical due to the manipulative attitude of their designers. I make two contributions to this discussion. First, I claim that the argument about manipulative attitude significantly shifts the perspective of the whole discussion on APs and that it refers to a much wider range of types of APs than has been acknowledged. Second, I investigate the possibilities of developing APs without a manipulative attitude. I proceed in the following manner: I examine the argument about manipulativeness; show the important novelty it brings to a discussion about APs; analyze how the argument can be extrapolated to designing other kinds of Aps; and discuss cases in which APs can be designed without manipulativeness. (shrink)

Numerous diagnoses of contemporary transformations of love and eroticism emphasise the fact that the intimate life has become democratised and liberated. Anthony Giddens argues that personal relationships increasingly become compatible with the model of pure relationship, which means that they are more egalitarian and that both partners are free to choose and to negotiate the shape of their relations. Jeffrey Weeks claims that in “the world that we have won”, women, homosexuals and queers are increasingly considered as equal to heterosexual (...) men. Most scholars agree that feminism is one of most important factors that enabled the democratisation of intimacy. Yet, it is possible to distinguish some interesting approaches that examine the unintended consequences of women’s emancipation. Sociologists like Arlie Russell Hochschild and Eva Illouz recognise the importance of feminism in democratising intimacy, thus they also claim that liberation of women has entailed rationalisation and commercialisation of intimacy. One of Hochschild’s main thesis is that feminism commercialises intimacy by legitimising “the commercial spirit of intimate life”. What is more, she argues that instead of humanizing men feminism is capitalising women. On the other hand, Illouz persuades that feminism – together with therapeutic discourse – rationalises intimacy by emphasising the necessity of analysing and quantifying all aspects of intimate life. Hochschild and Illouz claim that feminism unintentionally makes intimacy “cold” – that is that it suggests focusing on personal autonomy and perceiving warm and close bonds as an endangerment for that autonomy. The cooling entails loosening of family and intimate relationships and making individuals more attached to the market. In the end, both sociologists agree that “cool” branches of feminism make women similar to men and intimacy similar to the market. (shrink)

Author: Musiał Maciej Title: INTIMACY AND CULTURE. ANTHONY GIDDENS’ CONCEPTION OF PURE RELATIONSHIP IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOCIO-REGULATIVE THEORY OF CULTURE (Intymność a kultura. Czysta relacja Giddensa w perspektywie społeczno-regulacyjnej koncepcji kultury) Source: Filo-Sofija year: 2011, vol:.12, number: 2011/1, pages: 347-360 Keywords: INTIMACY, CULTURE, PURE RELATIONSHIP, FUNCTIONAL AND AUBJECTIVE-RATIONAL EXPLANATION Discipline: PHILOSOPHY Language: POLISH Document type: ARTICLE Publication order reference (Primary author’s office address): E-mail: www:The aim of the thesis is an attempt to applicate Jerzy Kmita’s theory of culture into (...) the issues included in the domain of intimacy. The first part of the paper is focused on intimacy as a part of culture. To be precise, if the concept of culture is understood after Kmita, it follows that, intimacy is considered as a set of norms and directives respected by the community and regulating intimate praxis in rational-subjective terms. The second part of the thesis is concentrated on the conception of “pure relationship” created by Anthony Giddens, which constitutes one of the most interesting approaches of describing contemporary tranformations of intimacy. Although, the author agrees with most of Giddens’ ideas, he perceives the conception of “pure relationship” as one-sided. Theory of culture created by Kmita, especially the idea of functional and aubjective-rational explanation, is used as a tool to indicate methodological mistakes, which are the reasons for sidedness of Giddens’ perspective. (shrink)

CONTEMPORARY TRANSFORMATIONS OF INTIMACY IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF MICHEL FOUCAULT’S HISTORY OF SEXUALITY This article discusses relations between Foucault’s history of sexuality and the contemporary transformations of eroticism diagnosed by Wojciech Klimczyk. The Klimczyk’s studies are interpreted in the perspective of theoretical tools provided by Foucault and seem to lead to an interesting conclusions. Peculiarity of those conclusions is especially connected with the fact that they are opposite to the diagnosis provided by Brian McNair and Anthony Giddens. Simply speaking, Giddens (...) and McNair claim that contemporary intimacy is emancipated from most of regulations and contains a high amount of freedom, while Klimczyk (with theoretical support of Foucault) argues that nowadays sexuality is strongly regulated by the outside conditions, especially by the market. (shrink)