Robot sex and consent: Is consent to sex between a robot and a human conceivable, possible, and desirable?

Frank, L., Nyholm, S. 

Artif Intell Law 25, 305–323 (2017).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9212-y

Abstract

The development of highly humanoid sex robots is on the technological horizon. If sex robots are integrated into the legal community as “electronic persons”, the issue of sexual consent arises, which is essential for legally and morally permissible sexual relations between human persons. This paper explores whether it is conceivable, possible, and desirable that humanoid robots should be designed such that they are capable of consenting to sex. We consider reasons for giving both “no” and “yes” answers to these three questions by examining the concept of consent in general, as well as critiques of its adequacy in the domain of sexual ethics; the relationship between consent and free will; and the relationship between consent and consciousness. Additionally we canvass the most influential existing literature on the ethics of sex with robots.

Here is an excerpt:

Here, we want to ask a similar question regarding how and whether sex robots should be brought into the legal community. Our overarching question is: is it conceivable, possible, and desirable to create autonomous and smart sex robots that are able to give (or withhold) consent to sex with a human person? For each of these three sub-questions (whether it is conceivable, possible, and desirable to create sex robots that can consent) we consider both “no” and “yes” answers. We are here mainly interested in exploring these questions in general terms and motivating further discussion. However, in discussing each of these sub-questions we will argue that, prima facie, the “yes” answers appear more convincing than the “no” answers—at least if the sex robots are of a highly sophisticated sort.Footnote4

The rest of our discussion divides into the following sections. We start by saying a little more about what we understand by a “sex robot”. We also say more about what consent is, and we review the small literature that is starting to emerge on our topic (Sect. 1). We then turn to the questions of whether it is conceivable, possible, and desirable to create sex robots capable of giving consent—and discuss “no” and “yes” answers to all of these questions. When we discuss the case for considering it desirable to require robotic consent to sex, we argue that there can be both non-instrumental and instrumental reasons in favor of such a requirement (Sects. 2–4). We conclude with a brief summary (Sect. 5).

The research is here.

Why Ethical People Become Unethical Negotiators

Dina Gerdeman
Forbes.com
Originally posted July 31, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

With profit and greed driving the desire to deceive, it’s not surprising that negotiators often act unethically. But it’s too simplistic to think people always enter a negotiation looking to dupe the other side.

Sometimes negotiators stretch the truth unintentionally, falling prey to what Bazerman and his colleagues call “bounded ethicality” by engaging in unethical behavior that contradicts their values without knowing it.

Why does this happen? In the heat of negotiations, “ethical fading” comes into play, and people are unable to see the ethical implications of their actions because their desire to win gets in the way. The end result is deception.

In business, with dollars at stake, many people will interpret situations in ways that naturally favor them. Take Bazerman’s former dentist, who always seemed too quick to drill. “He was overtreating my mouth, and it didn’t make sense,” he says.

In service professions, he explains, people often have conflicts of interest. For instance, a surgeon may believe that surgery is the proper course of action, but her perception is biased: She has an incentive and makes money off the decision to operate. Another surgeon might just as easily come to the conclusion that if it’s not bothering you, don’t operate. “Lawyers are affected by how long a case takes to settle,” he adds. “

The info is here.

Canadian Psychology: Ethical and Legal Considerations of record keeping

An updated account of the ethical and legal considerations of record keeping.

Bemister, Taryn B.; Dobson, Keith S.

Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, Jul 25, 2011

Abstract:

The Canadian literature is void of contemporary guidelines for clinical record keeping for psychologists, as the most recent article was published more than two decades ago (Eberlein, 1990). However, the techniques used in record keeping have greatly advanced, specifically with regard to the role of computers and the use of electronic documents. Furthermore, new legislation and guidelines have been developed in response to these technological advancements. The purpose of this article is to provide a concise, accessible, and up-to-date set of guidelines on record keeping in psychology. The professional and legal requirements of psychologists are discussed with regard to the use, content, access, ownership, and retention of records with special consideration given to electronic documents. Recommendations are made for Canadian psychologists that are consistent with the current legal and professional standards of the field.

Beginning of the article:

The Canadian literature is void of contemporary guidelines for clinical record keeping.

Although books that contain information regarding record keeping have been published more recently (e.g., Evans, 2004 and Truscott & Crook, 2004), the most recent article dates back to 1990 (Eberlein, 1990).
Eberlein's article was written largely in response to the establishment of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological Association [CPA], 1988; herein referred to as the Code of Ethics).

However, two revisions of the Code of Ethics have been published (1999 and 2001), and the techniques used in record keeping have advanced, specifically with regard to the role of computers and the use of electronic documents.

Beyond the above developments, the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) was introduced in 2000, and it has modified the statutes relevant to records.

Similarly, a draft of guidelines for psychologists who provide psychological services via electronic media was developed (CPA, 2006; to be finalized).

A second exerpt:

The purpose of this article is to provide a concise and accessible resource on record keeping that is up-to-date with the advances that have occurred since 1990.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the issues related to record keeping and provides recommendations for Canadian psychologists.

More specifically, the professional and legal requirements of psychologists are discussed with regard to the use, content, access, ownership, and retention of records with special consideration given to electronic documents.

The implications of technological advances on client confidentiality and privacy are also considered.
The suggestions made in this paper are consistent with the Code of Ethics, as well as legislative and provincial laws and regulations, including the Code of Conduct (or its equivalent) of each province and territory.

The author note provides the following contact information: Taryn B. Bemister, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada. E-mail: tbbemist@ucalgary.ca.

Thanks to Ken Pope for the information.