Challenging the Neo-Anthropocentric Relational Approach to Robot Rights
This academic article critically examines the relational approach to robot rights, arguing that relationalism fails to escape anthropocentrism. The author contends that relationalism is actually a form of neo-anthropocentrism that recenters human values and perceptions, functions indirectly as a properties-based approach, and leads to absurd practical implications due to human anthropomorphism. Ultimately, the paper challenges proponents of robot relationalism to clarify and further develop their theories within environmental ethics frameworks.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers and scholars of robot ethics and artificial intelligence philosophy should read this to understand the limitations of the relational approach to robot rights.
What the document contains
The article evaluates the philosophical underpinnings of the relational turn in robot ethics, examining concepts such as moral standing, moral agency, moral patiency, and various forms of anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism drawn from environmental ethics.
The document does not provide a practical legal framework, concrete policy recommendations, or official regulatory guidelines for governing robots.
- Relationalism in robot ethics claims to move past anthropocentrism, but it remains fundamentally anthropocentric.
- The approach centers human values and perceptions, making it a form of axiological and neo-anthropocentrism.
- Relationalism is indirectly a properties-based approach because how humans relate to robots depends on the observable properties of those robots.
- Applying relationalism in practice leads to absurd implications when combined with human tendencies to anthropomorphize objects like volleyballs or security blankets.
- Proponents of robot relationalism must further clarify their theories and position them properly relative to environmental ethics and anthropocentrism.
· Abstract · Introduction · Anthropocentrism and the Others · The Relational Turn as Neo-Anthropocentrism · Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24