The Ethics of Socially Assistive Robots in Aged-Care Settings: A Socio-Historical Contextualisation
THE ETHICS OF SOCIALLY ASSISTIVE ROBOTS IN AGED-CARE SETTINGS: A SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXTUALISATION
This academic article proposes a philosophical-ethical framework for the use of socially assistive robots in aged-care settings, bridging the gap between empirical research and philosophical reflection. Drawing on the works of Margaret Urban Walker, Joan Tronto, and Andrew Feenberg, the authors argue for a socio-historical contextualisation of robot ethics. Ultimately, they outline a rudimentary decision-making process based on three pillars: stakeholders' intuitions as sources of knowledge, interpretative dialogues as democratic spaces, and the concretisation of ethics in robot design and use.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, ethicists, policy makers, and technology designers looking for a comprehensive philosophical framework to evaluate socially assistive robots in aged care.
What the document contains
The paper addresses the ethical implications of introducing socially assistive robots in aged-care settings, analyzing existing universalist and particularist ethical approaches, and proposing a socio-historical contextualisation framework rooted in ethics, care, and technology theories.
The document does not provide a binding regulatory code, technical standards, or specific legal enforcement mechanisms for robot deployment.
- Current empirical research and philosophical-ethical reflection on socially assistive robots in aged care remain separated, risking ethical relativism or distanced ethics.
- A socio-historical contextualisation framework bridges this gap by grounding ethical reflection in the lived realities and intuitions of older adults and caregivers.
- Margaret Urban Walker's expressive-collaborative model of morality, Joan Tronto's care ethics, and Andrew Feenberg's critical constructivism of technology provide robust philosophical underpinnings for this approach.
- The proposed decision-making process rests on three pillars: stakeholders' intuitions as knowledge, interpretative dialogues as democratic spaces, and the concretisation of ethics in technology.
- Involving stakeholders in democratic spaces ensures that technological development responds to social constraints and shared values rather than imposing purely technical considerations.
· Abstract · Introduction and background · Philosophical-ethical and empirical-ethical approaches to SAR use in aged care settings · Socio-historical contextualisation of ethics, care, and technology · Three pillars of the decision-making process about SAR use · Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Human Dignity
3/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Moreover, for them, just the idea of using SARs shows us an aged care which already treats older adults in an undignified way.
Split between empirical research and philosophical-ethical research
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
2/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Second-order criteria are then derived from these moral rules and criteria; e.g., attention to older adults’ privacy, respect for older adults’ dignity and taking into account the risks of deceiving older adults by using SARs.
Universalist and particularist ethical approaches to SAR use
screening score · 2026-10-23