If a robot murders someone, who is responsible, the creator or the robot?

[Hyoujin]

By our current laws, the robot.

Let's say a toaster killed someone. Not by someone putting it in their bath or jamming a knife into it, but through it spontaneously cumbusting, It's part of a line of perfectly working toasters, so it's a freak incident. No one can be blamed, seeing as the toaster has no sentience.

Or at least that's how I see it.

If we put laws into place, undoubtedly there'd be a law that would put the creator to blame for the even allowing the machine to commit murder.

 

[SuperNashwan]

This has surely been a plotline for a star trek episode somewhere along the line, probably with an awesome bit of acting from Patrick Stewart. Jean Luc is always right

I would say the robot is responsible as it has free will

 

[Spacewolf]

if it was told to kill someone then the creator if it isnt programed or goes against its programming to kill some one then the robot,

How ever if it was told to kill someone against its programming and subsiquently thought that it was correct or if the stress of breaking its programming the first time had driven it insane it gets more complicated

 

[Mr Jack]

Did the robot play any video games at any point?

If so, then it is the fault of those horrific murder simulators.

OT: If the Robot had the ability so reason at least as well as a human can, then I suppose it must be the Robot's fault.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

It's already been said, but what you're describing is basically a parent child relationship. As long as the robot has been developed with an at least human moral and ethical code, and it indeed does have free will, all it's actions are the responsibility of it. I know parents can't be sure their child is capable of morality and empathy, since we're still fairly sure there may be genetic factors in psychotic disorders, but since this robot has been carefully designed, it is the responsibility of the creator to make sure he or she implements a comprehensive range of human emotions, including empathy.

 

[PoliceBox63]

The creator must have created a malicious personality if the Robot willingly killed someone so I say the creator

 

[Brad Shepard]

Just a topic that has popped up in my mind. So lets say some scientist creates a machine capable of free will. It can do whatever it wants, whenever. So what if it decides to murder someone. Who is responsible?

I 'm not really too sure myself. The robot did do the deed, but the creator DID create it.

Edit: Crap! Wrong forum! Can a mod move this to Offtopic, please?

Depends, how advance is the Robot's AI?

 

[Macgyvercas]

As pretty much everyone in this thread has stated, since the robot has free will and chose to kill someone, it is the robot's fault. If it ws programed to kill, it would be the creator's fault.

 

[Lyx]

Just a topic that has popped up in my mind. So lets say some scientist creates a machine capable of free will. It can do whatever it wants, whenever. So what if it decides to murder someone. Who is responsible?

I 'm not really too sure myself. The robot did do the deed, but the creator DID create it.

You answered your question yourself.

The concept "responsibility" simply is a method to mentally change what happened. Responsibility lets you act as if A happened even though B happened. It also tends to be used to make the answer "One" (i.e., multiple people were involved, but blame is rated as if only one of them did it). Pretty much everything can be rated without the concept responsibility, though it linguistically may sound "unusual" - but thats only because humans are so used to treating events different than they happened.

 

[veloper]

It's entirely the creator's fault.

You don't build a man of steel without safety limits.

To take this even further, If in some hypothetical future we grow humans like in a Brave New World instead of doing it the natural way and we could program or condition them not to able to commit heineous crimes, we should.

Also, wrong forum.

 

[Numachuka]

If you killed someone would your parents be too blame?

Yea, but a parent doesn't define how their offspring will act. They simply brought him/her into the world. but a creator programmed in everything that comes with free will. So in a way he is responsible

But you could say that is the same as the nature/nurture 'programming' we receive from birth onwards? Alas the plot thickens...

But people don't have to stick to their "programming", they have free will. A robot cannot do that so it is the fault of the creator unless it has free will.

 

[pretentiousname01]

[img src="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmNkwAaYutjipb4HYxWf5KWidAs39JLYsqQVGJLvyIpM3nxEM&t=1&usg=__0cEztal3-Yz62CzKyZ3McqFUUbQ=" /img]

^creator = Murderer ^

V individual =murderer V

Spoiler

[img src="http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100609224750/masseffect/images/thumb/2/25/Legion.png/270px-Legion.png" /img]

 

[bubba145]

Robot unless it was caused by a defect.

 

[Tharwen]

Aha! You ask whose fault it is. Literally, it's the robot's, as the fault can only be said to be within it. However, I think it's pertinent to ask if the creator should be held responsible for making that error.

I think the creator could never be held responsible for murder, as it wasn't something he chose to do. He could possibly be charged with responsibility for the mistake he made. Maybe... 'programming without due care and attention'?

 

[soilent]

The Murderee for pissing off the robot with free will, what a moron.

I'm such a rebel...

ooohhhhh yeaaaa...

 

[Danzaivar]

If a knife murders someone who is responsible the creator or the knife?

Neither. The user is responsible. Same logic to a robot, whether that 'user' is the owner of the robot, or someone who commanded it to kill someone else. If the Robot is sapient and a self-made robot, then it owns itself and thus should be responsible itself.

Unless of course the murder is due to a glitch/malfunction, then it's the creators fault. Say the 'open left palm' command has a 2% chance of the "fire the chest cannon" command firing instead due to a dodgy stack overflow. But err, assuming normal operation then the user of the machine is to blame.