Back to assessments
Source assessmentSupporting

Rights-Bearers vs. Rites-Bearers: A Confucian Cross-Cultural Perspective

Ethical treatment of robotsAcademicdocument

Assessment outcome

total 3/4 (actionability 1 + authority 2); currency unscored, so pro-rated to 4.5/6

Total3/6
Actionability1/2
Authority2/2
Currency—

Authorship & scope

Attribution (G4 evidence)

The article is authored by Tae Wan Kim and Alan Strudler.

Issuer authority (evidence)

Level 2: Published in Communications of the ACM, establishing peer-reviewed or official academic venue status.

Issuers, who it governs, legal force and content are on the full record.

Eligibility gates

G1 · Retrievablepass

HTTP 200, 7105 words of full text extracted

G2 · AI nexuspass

The article is primarily about robots, AI entities, and how humans should treat them.

G3 · Governance nexuspass

It discusses ethical treatment, moral status, and legal implications regarding robots.

G4 · Attributablepass

The article is authored by Tae Wan Kim and Alan Strudler.

G5 · In forcepass

There is no retraction or repeal notice present on the page.

Scored criteria

Actionability

1/2

Level 1: Provides philosophical direction on robot ethics, but specifies no binding step or actionable implementation standard.

namely, do not grant rights to robots, grant only role-obligations

Authority

2/2

Level 2: Published in Communications of the ACM, establishing peer-reviewed or official academic venue status.

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM | JUNE 2023 | VOL. 66 | NO. 6 review articles

Currency

—

computed: no publish/modified date found on the page (never guessed)

Classification

Coverage topicEthical treatment of robots
PerspectiveAcademic
Lifecycle stageN/A cross-cutting
Layerboth
Granularitydocument