Teaching and Crafting Human-Robot Relational Ethics
This academic paper proposes and reflects on a teaching methodology for introducing relational ethics in the engineering curriculum based on a pilot course for robotics engineers at TU Delft in the Netherlands. The course shifts away from traditional ethical theories and checkpoint assessments by having students explore dimensions of care and human-robot relations through hands-on crafting of companion robots using obsolete technology. The paper outlines the conceptual and practical reasons for the course redesign, details four tutorial sessions focusing on identifying, performing, repairing, and sustaining relations, and offers broader lessons learned.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Educators and researchers in engineering ethics looking to implement relational and experiential learning methodologies in their curricula.
What the document contains
This document addresses the redesign of an MSc robotics and society course to incorporate relational ethics, detailing practical tutorial sessions involving low-tech companion robot crafting, role-playing, and stakeholder discussions on human-robot relations.
The document does not provide legally binding regulatory frameworks, technical safety standards for commercial robotics, or formal institutional governance policies.
- Relational ethics provides an alternative framework to traditional anthropocentric ethical approaches by focusing on interdependence and more-than-human perspectives.
- Hands-on crafting of personal robot companions from scrap and obsolete technology helps engineering students experientially engage with relational and care dimensions.
- The four dimensions of care—identifying, performing, repairing, and sustaining relations—can be operationalized effectively within engineering ethics tutorials.
- Integrating active experiential learning into engineering curricula promotes inclusivity, neurodiversity, and accessibility while mitigating reliance on generative AI tools.
- Implementing active relational ethics modules presents logistical and material challenges that require increased coordination and resources from academic teaching teams.
· Introduction · Background · Crafting relational ethics, from the conceptual to the practical · Tutorials · Discussion · Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
3/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
It also promoted the idea that engineering students are responsible for co-shaping these technologies and how other people relate to them in their future careers.
Crafting relational ethics, from the conceptual to the practical
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
1/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
environmental justice scholarship, indigenous philosophies, and care ethics.
Relational Ethics
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
1/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
obfuscated supply chains, energy-intensive training of software and data center operations, and water shortages
Reasons for Redesign
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
2/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
identify, ideally proactively, a broad range of social and ethical concerns and mitigation strategies regarding the development of specific technologies.
Introduction
screening score · 2026-10-24